Are Reviewers Reliable These Days?

They're reliable if you only look at the written review and not the score.

You need to do some looking at the reviewer's past reviews. Also look at what they have writen. I found x-play to score JRPG low and little their good points.

No. But I'd pick them over users, lowering it's score just cause it's cool to hate popular things ;)

You obviously don't know the history of this website, do you? :lol:JustPlainLucas

No. Hell I go by people who actually. You know. Play the game.Vexx88

Gamespot reviewers finish the game prior to writing a review.:?

[QUOTE="Vexx88"]No. Hell I go by people who actually. You know. Play the game.topsemag55

Gamespot reviewers finish the game prior to writing a review.:?

Not really. There's a lot to be cleared up about advertising money and network-related stuff ("write bad about our game and we don't invite you anymore") that is very obviously going on behind the screens 'till some degree.

It may sound weird, but going by the general consensus of these forums actually is of great help when deciding on whether to buy a game. A considerable part of my PC game collection is influenced on word-to-mouth on this and other websites.

no. they never have been. back in the 80's and early 90's, negative reviews were practically never made. there will always be a huge amount of ineptitude and bias in the reviewing community. I dont even watch other people's reviews. I make my own

I think they are reliable,I dont see what alot of people complain about.There seems to be alot of paranoia these days,its funny but the gaming community is similar to a sports community these days,people are treating review scores like points or goals and when a game loses so to speak they cry foul even if its only a point or half a point off of the almighty AAA they are cheering for.To the ones who disagree,how unreliable are they?How far off your own personal score are the reviews you complain about?

I'm sorry but it just seems that the overall direction of the gaming industry has a huge lean on reviewers and that alot of reviewers seem to be corrupt (i.e Gametrailers, IGN, Destructoid) I mean, game reviewers are getting paid to give a higher score to games when they don't deserve it. This is why I usually pay attention to smaller gaming companies rather than the big ones. Am I the only one who thinks this?FranticDarkness

there's good ones and bad ones, like any job/Allicrombie

I dont even watch other people's reviews. I make my own

Reviewers have never been reliable, ever, in any medium.

LOL....

No.

On the reliability scale, they are way down the list. I'd rate defense lawyers, politicians, and Vince the ShamWOW guy all higher than a game reviewer. Game reviewers remind me of the writer that English Bob had with him in the movie Unforgiven. Both in their unreliable recollection of events, to the extravagant, cheesy diction most reviews contain.

They can be very useful (certainly more than Press realeases/previews).

For example I have a pet peeve about respawning enemies and backtracking so when I read a review of Majin and the Forsaken Kingdom in Game Informer and the reviewer complains about those two things I know to avoid.

That said I find reviews tend to give a pass to large triple A titles and come down harder on lesser titles. There have been times in the past where it is clear the majority of reviews didn't finish the game (GTA4 is a classic example) There is also the simple fact that most reviews are first impressions. Some games age like a fine wine while others become show their faults over time.

They also tend to like shorter linear games more than players while often discounting replayability.

I wouldn't let reviews be the end all of my gaming purchase. After all your on experience is a better barometer. You know what you like. They are simply a tool in priotizing your purchases and occasionally trying something new.

Every person has their own tastes on videogame. We cant blame a certain reviewer if you dont like their review

Usually their criticisms are spot on. Other than listening to the negatives, you shouldn't be completely "relying" on reviewers' reviews anyway.

I used to think gamespot was corrupt a couple years ago, when I had a lower set of standards. Now their reviews are basically the same as what I thought of a game.nottu

It's all very simple, really. Don't take any one reviewer's or any one site's judgement on a game as gospel. If a game nabs your interest for any reason, just do this:

-Read about 3-5, maybe even more reviews from different sites, and note any common "problems" that pop up (Camera, Glitches, Voice Acting, etc.). I say "problems" because some failingsare easily overlooked by some, if not by many.

-If you can get over said "problems", and the rest sounds like a game you'd be interested in playing for any reason, then damn thenaysayers and PLAY IT!

Reviews in general can never be reliable. They are based on the preferences of the reviewer, and unless you know that particular person's interests intimately (as in basically knowing them personally; since what they give us on the "professional" level, may be entirely different to how they present on the personal level), it is very difficult to base your purchases off of what they may recommend. Not only that, but what is more important is that you have to have a very good idea about what you like too, and have had substantial time with various games from various genres to know what you really do like playing, for a review to help in any way.

A review has two functions. To report on in-game content, and to tell us, through the lens of the reivewer's subjectivity how they *think* those elements contribute to the overall feel of the game. Everything in a review is subjective, because the reviewer can only report on their own experiences, and not have any means of reporting objectively what they see. For instance, I enjoyed Cursed Mountain, even despite its sketchy gesture controls, because I thought it was a unique experience with a unique setting and great atmosphere. Many other reviewers have panned the game for being poor and boring... but it all depends on what YOU like.

Red Dead Redemption and Mass Effect 2 are two of the most critially acclaimed games this year, and I thought the former was boring and a poor excuse of a game (a story driven game should have a quality story, not 3-4 hours of story padded out into busy work) and the latter despite being a well-made game, something that took too many steps away from what I enjoyed about its predecessor, and the role-playing genre.

Play demos, talk to personal friends and most importantly, play tons of different games from years past, to get an understanding of what you like before relying on reviewers to tell you what they think you should like.

I'm resigned to the fact that 99% of all gaming journalism is complete garbage. I just don't bother getting worked up about it anymore. If it isn't a reviewer getting it completely wrong that makes the reader question whether the reviewer has played the game at all, or a review riddled with hyperbole to the point where it comes off as fanboy advertisement, it's lame posturing like some nameless gaming website that purposefully publishes their reviews last because they still think they're the source that everyone is waiting for.