Do you *trust* mainstream video game journalists?

I forgot to add I don't trust them anymore.
I had to cancel my subscription to my favorite magazine because they began writing differently:
Their reviews changed from them having their honest opinion to writing what a certain audience would like to read. As a fan for more than 15 years I noticed this and especially with the Wii and Modern Warfare series it became obvious money was getting into play. I felt pretty sick about it.

It became apparent that it wasn't just my most trusted magazine who sold out. Gaming journalism has fallen to the level of regular journalism. Disgusting.
You should keep writing honest reviews, especially now. And corrupted journalism should be exposed whenever possible.

Most users who don't find game journalist reliable believe so purely because the score didn't match what they thought it should, not because they actually read the review... It's a joke, really.vashkey

This post is extremely accurate.

I've even seen people say they don't agree with a reviewer before actually playing the game themselves. :lol:

[QUOTE="vashkey"]Most users who don't find game journalist reliable believe so purely because the score didn't match what they thought it should, not because they actually read the review... It's a joke, really.GreySeal9

This post is extremely accurate.

I've even seen people say they don't agree with a reviewer before actually playing the game themselves. :lol:

Or, just maybe, they read the review, played the game, and find the two don't match?

There is plenty wrong with the review system under the best of circumstances, as different people hold different things more or less important. But plenty of reviews by the same individuals from various sites and publications don't line up with one another in terms of standards.

For example... in one game, a short SP game is a problem, but it's not in another.

lolno I should be a video game journalist I would bring my pro fps bias in and be awesome. Basically in every review for a FPS I would just write QUAKELIVE IS SO MUCH BETTARJigglyWiggly_

:lol: :lol:

You should seriously do that. I would totally visit your site!

Or, just maybe, they read the review, played the game, and find the two don't match?Pug-Nasty

That's not a reason for distrust. People's own personal scores will *gasp* differ from reviewers. :shock:That doesn't say anything about the reviewer's trustworthiness. People need to learn to to lose some of the ego. The whole world doesn't revolve around one's personal score.

There is plenty wrong with the review system under the best of circumstances, as different people hold different things more or less important. But plenty of reviews by the same individuals from various sites and publications don't line up with one another in terms of standards.

For example... in one game, a short SP game is a problem, but it's not in another.

Pug-Nasty

Different people having different values is not a problem. It's life.

There will be inconsistencies because reviewers are human and different people review different games.

Also, a short game can be problematic in one context and not in another. It's not black and white.

Lastly, I stand by the statement that most distrust comes out reviewers not giving games a desirable score. The evidence is all over SW.

People think they have impeccable perception about a game's quality (even before a game releases), and when a reviewer doesn't conform with that perception, they get mad, even resorting to such lines as "They're affected by nostalgia!"

I don't trust most game reviewers in general these days. The big ones are like "I LOVE THIS GAME" because they get all of these "incentives" to do so, while the less mainstream ones are like "I HAVE AN OPPOSITE OPINION TO THE MAINSTREAM GUYS, GIVE ME ATTENTION". They're both terrible. Most of the time I just watch some gameplay with NO commentary, to see if it seems like I would like the game.

I don't trust mainstream game journalists period!

I trust myself, I know what I like.

Honestly, Gamesradar seems to hit the nail on the head for every review I see by them. But no, I don't trust any single person or publication. If a game is good, I'll find a time to play it. I can usually tell for myself.

I don't take it seriously in the slightest, especially this place.

I trust Giant Bomb and reviewers on Blistered Thumbs and that is about it. :p

no..gears of war 3 sukd hard. I was literally fighting a stupid tentacle for 5 hours into the game. WTF I just wanted to throw the controller at my tv, it became so boring and repetitive. Im thankful that i only rented the game, and If i bought the game going from that 9.5 rating here on GS, i know i wouldve regretted it. So no, even though journalists have their honour, they also gotta eat, and when it comes down to it, they will sell their morals for it. I can't blame them as i wouldve done the same thing if i were in their position.

I take it with a grain of salt really. I trust myself and only myself to find a game that I would like and that's all that matters to me. :D

I only trust Yahtzee to hate everything, and almost 99% of the time I agree with him on his critiques, albeit overall enjoyment typically differentiates us.

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]Or, just maybe, they read the review, played the game, and find the two don't match?GreySeal9

That's not a reason for distrust. People's own personal scores will *gasp* differ from reviewers. :shock:That doesn't say anything about the reviewer's trustworthiness. People need to learn to to lose some of the ego. The whole world doesn't revolve around one's personal score.

There is plenty wrong with the review system under the best of circumstances, as different people hold different things more or less important. But plenty of reviews by the same individuals from various sites and publications don't line up with one another in terms of standards.

For example... in one game, a short SP game is a problem, but it's not in another.

Pug-Nasty

Different people having different values is not a problem. It's life.

There will be inconsistencies because reviewers are human and different people review different games.

Also, a short game can be problematic in one context and not in another. It's not black and white.

Lastly, I stand by the statement that most distrust comes out reviewers not giving games a desirable score. The evidence is all over SW.

People think they have impeccable perception about a game's quality (even before a game releases), and when a reviewer doesn't conform with that perception, they get mad, even resorting to such lines as "They're affected by nostalgia!"

Yeah, we can say everything is subjective and call it a day, but that's taking the easy way out of a discussion.

A lot of gamers see the scores games get and see obvious inconsistencies with them. It isn't a matter of "I'm right, you're wrong," but rather obvious faults not being addressed for certain titles while every issue, no matter how small, are brought to the forefront of the review for others.

And, if I'm not mistaken, you constantly pass judgment on games you haven't played, and what I said is certainly more judgmented than that.

lolno I should be a video game journalist I would bring my pro fps bias in and be awesome. Basically in every review for a FPS I would just write QUAKELIVE IS SO MUCH BETTARJigglyWiggly_

At least ur honest :P

Giant Bomb gave MK vs. DC a perfect score. I don't think anything else has to be said about their credibility.

NOPE!!! I dont care what these people say. They're wrong 99% of the time anyways. I go with what i feel & i make my own opinion.

I also have a problem with the grading system. Back in the day it didnt matter what a game got we played them all. Now it seems the score is the most important thing. its too influential in this day in age. It costs devs alot of sales because of numbers. This day in age its either "9 or bust" mentality. Anything less is considered a bad game to many people. They'll just ignore it completely based on the numbered score.

We need to do away with the score completely. Just leave the words there for people to read or hear. Reviewers are way too biased, way too harsh & really unfair. they also dont follow any code so one reviewer can praise a game for one thing & another could tear the game apart for the same thing.

NOPE!!! I dont care what these people say. They're wrong 99% of the time anyways. I go with what i feel & i make my own opinion.

I also have a problem with the grading system. Back in the day it didnt matter what a game got we played them all. Now it seems the score is the most important thing. its too influential in this day in age. It costs devs alot of sales because of numbers. This day in age its either "9 or bust" mentality. Anything less is considered a bad game to many people. They'll just ignore it completely based on the numbered score.

We need to do away with the score completely. Just leave the words there for people to read or hear. Reviewers are way too biased, way too harsh & really unfair. they also dont follow any code so one reviewer can praise a game for one thing & another could tear the game apart for the same thing.

brucecambell

IGN gave MW3 an 8.5 for its graphics on the PS3, makes me at least suspicious.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]Or, just maybe, they read the review, played the game, and find the two don't match?Pug-Nasty

That's not a reason for distrust. People's own personal scores will *gasp* differ from reviewers. :shock:That doesn't say anything about the reviewer's trustworthiness. People need to learn to to lose some of the ego. The whole world doesn't revolve around one's personal score.

There is plenty wrong with the review system under the best of circumstances, as different people hold different things more or less important. But plenty of reviews by the same individuals from various sites and publications don't line up with one another in terms of standards.

For example... in one game, a short SP game is a problem, but it's not in another.

Pug-Nasty

Different people having different values is not a problem. It's life.

There will be inconsistencies because reviewers are human and different people review different games.

Also, a short game can be problematic in one context and not in another. It's not black and white.

Lastly, I stand by the statement that most distrust comes out reviewers not giving games a desirable score. The evidence is all over SW.

People think they have impeccable perception about a game's quality (even before a game releases), and when a reviewer doesn't conform with that perception, they get mad, even resorting to such lines as "They're affected by nostalgia!"

Yeah, we can say everything is subjective and call it a day, but that's taking the easy way out of a discussion.

A lot of gamers see the scores games get and see obvious inconsistencies with them. It isn't a matter of "I'm right, you're wrong," but rather obvious faults not being addressed for certain titles while every issue, no matter how small, are brought to the forefront of the review for others.

And, if I'm not mistaken, you constantly pass judgment on games you haven't played, and what I said is certainly more judgmented than that.

No, it's not an easy way out, it's the truth. The score and much of the reasoning behind it is ultimately going to be a subjective judgment and it need not match up with anybody's personal score. That's simply the way it works.

As for the bolded, it certainly is a matter of "I'm right, you're wrong." I mean, do you see the actual posts on SW? Also, the obvious faults may be obvious faults in your opinion and not in the reviewer's opinion. Whether an issue is small or not is your opinion as well.

As for passing judgment, I do make comments about thinking certain games look good or bad, but never do I complain about reviewers due to a preconcieved notion that I had in my head about a game's quality.