The Good, the Bad & the Ugly of Game review sites...

Lets give score to some of the game review you use. Bsically give a score followed by Good, Bad and Ugly.

Heres mine

Gamespot - 7.5; Good- System wars,mc shea; Bad - unfairely against playstation games, No proper scoring system review; Ugly- loosingends

IGN - 7.5; Good - Variety of offering, coverage; Bad- baised towards playstation games, alot of 9 reviews; Ugly- Greg

Eurogamer - 8.5; Good- usually spot on reviews; Bad- Site is clustered; Ugly- no trolls in forum

The Good: Any site that gives high scores to games I like.

The Bad: Any site that doesn't give high scores to games I like.

The Ugly: Giantbomb-Jeff Gerstmann.

We all are living in democracy and we should look at Metacritic and GameRankings.

Relying on GameSpot reviews as a main source for reviews is like worshipping Hitler.

We all are living in democracy and we should look at Metacritic and GameRankings.

Relying on GameSpot reviews as a main source for reviews is like worshipping Hitler.

GamerwillzPS

Relying on GameSpot reviews as a main source for reviews is like worshipping Hitler.

GamerwillzPS

Relying on GameSpot reviews as a main source for reviews is like worshipping Hitler.GamerwillzPS

[QUOTE="GamerwillzPS"]

Relying on GameSpot reviews as a main source for reviews is like worshipping Hitler.

freedomfreak

Feel free to use my quote. It's good to see people putting the truth in their sigs.

Feel free to use my quote. It's good to see people putting the truth in their sigs.

GamerwillzPS

Remember people. Gamespot automatically gets a 0/10 forever.

Sony threatened them when they gave Kane & Lynch a bad score and they fired the reviewer as a result. Always use an ad blocker on Gamespot to avoid giving them any money. Ditto IGN for accepting cash for scores and damage control (DA 2, ME 3, plenty of other big budget titles, etc). Firing a game reviewer for giving an honest score to a crap game is a permanent black mark on any review site's record. Really nobody should even be reading Gamespot. This site flat out deserves to die by losing all traffic.

Good: Any review site that gives unbiased reviews

Bad: Biased reviews that just serve as good publicity for a game.

Ugly: Review Site bribery by the game's publisher. Oh and...

Relying on GameSpot reviews as a main source for reviews is like worshipping Hitler.

GamerwillzPS

See, this is what I don't understand. Why are we still comparing things to Hitler?

Why not compare things to more modern threats such as the former Soviet Union, Terrorists, etc...

[QUOTE="GamerwillzPS"]

We all are living in democracy and we should look at Metacritic and GameRankings.

Relying on GameSpot reviews as a main source for reviews is like worshipping Hitler.

Ninja-Hippo

I hate metacritic since its averging overall scores and I feel it shouldint be that way. It makes no sense what so ever. Metacritic should just be a site that shows you a link to all the games reviews and thats it nothing more.

Gametrailers - 9.5 They're usually on the mark on what I would give a game and the reviews are well written and thought out.

Giantbomb - 3.5 Bunch of HD console fanboys that have an outdated system.

Ign -7.5 they give out high score way to easily.

Gamespot - 6.5 they like the contreversy so they rate high anticipated games lower than what they deserve

EDGE = gods.

Giantbomb - 3.5 Bunch of HD console fanboys that have an outdated system.

The_Pacific

Giantbomb = gods

at first i could understand some reviewers not agreeing with me or the majority of people in some games, but then i started realizing how paid and biased reviews are on this site, so they became "gameplay footage" for me.

Good : Giantbomb

Bad : Gamespot after Giantbomb team left

Ugly : fanboys everywhere

7.5 is a fine score for a game.

Remember people. Gamespot automatically gets a 0/10 forever.

Sony threatened them when they gave Kane & Lynch a bad score and they fired the reviewer as a result. Always use an ad blocker on Gamespot to avoid giving them any money. Ditto IGN for accepting cash for scores and damage control (DA 2, ME 3, plenty of other big budget titles, etc). Firing a game reviewer for giving an honest score to a crap game is a permanent black mark on any review site's record. Really nobody should even be reading Gamespot. This site flat out deserves to die by losing all traffic.

[QUOTE="The_Pacific"]

Giantbomb - 3.5 Bunch of HD console fanboys that have an outdated system.

waltefmoney

Giantbomb = gods

Truth.

Remember people. Gamespot automatically gets a 0/10 forever.

Sony threatened them when they gave Kane & Lynch a bad score and they fired the reviewer as a result. Always use an ad blocker on Gamespot to avoid giving them any money. Ditto IGN for accepting cash for scores and damage control (DA 2, ME 3, plenty of other big budget titles, etc). Firing a game reviewer for giving an honest score to a crap game is a permanent black mark on any review site's record. Really nobody should even be reading Gamespot. This site flat out deserves to die by losing all traffic.

Most big gaming sites are a combination of good and bad, however:
The Ugly - The dozens of video game "journalism" outlets that write sensationalist articles in hopes of becoming a trending story on N4G

[QUOTE="FlamesOfGrey"][QUOTE="Myounage"]

Remember people. Gamespot automatically gets a 0/10 forever.

Sony threatened them when they gave Kane & Lynch a bad score and they fired the reviewer as a result. Always use an ad blocker on Gamespot to avoid giving them any money. Ditto IGN for accepting cash for scores and damage control (DA 2, ME 3, plenty of other big budget titles, etc). Firing a game reviewer for giving an honest score to a crap game is a permanent black mark on any review site's record. Really nobody should even be reading Gamespot. This site flat out deserves to die by losing all traffic.

Myounage

yeah i remember that, no wonder why they review some games with "same old formula" and not "innovative" but cod keeps getting 8-9 for their "familiar formula"

Sony threatened them when they gave Kane & Lynch a bad score and they fired the reviewer as a result.Myounage

The good -

The bad -

The ugly - EVERY REVIEW SITE

Don't let someone else tell you what games to buy and what games to ignore. Find out what games you like on your own.

All reviews are just opinions, but I'll give it a go based off the sites I prefer more:

The Good: IGN, Giant Bomb, Game Informer. All I feel give pretty accurate reviews overall based off of my tastes, also they have more mature communities it feels.

The Bad: GameSpot, Machinima, Destructoid. Aside from having dumb communities, these sites don't feel very professional to me. And in the case of Machinima, seems like it's made for one system and not the others.

The Ugly: G4/Xplay, Lens of Truth, Digital Foundry. G4 is just a laughable dumb site, the other two are just flaim bait sites that exist to make fanboys happy.

But all reviews are just opinions, no reason to get mad at people for havind different ones than I do.

[QUOTE="Myounage"][QUOTE="FlamesOfGrey"] Um what Sony threatened Gamespot over a crappy multiplatform game?Krelian-co

yeah i remember that, no wonder why they review some games with "same old formula" and not "innovative" but cod keeps getting 8-9 for their "familiar formula"

It wasn't Sony, they had nothing to do with Kane and Lynch. It was Eidos that threatened to pull ad support, to which GS fired Jeff Gertsman beause he gave his honest opinion on the game. GS was under new managment at the time and they were quite inexperienced and did not know how to handle the matter.

However Gertsman made peace with GS recently and said he wouldn't have done so if GS was still the same. So I think it's changed a bit now. Still I bet ad pressure and "big name title" bias exists within the review industry in all aspects of it to one degree or another.

If you don't think media sites, including game ones, arn't prone to advertising pressure or bias then you are very naive. It happens in all forms of media, not just games. Go watch network news if you don't believe me that bias exists in the media.

All reviews are just opinions, but I'll give it a go based off the sites I prefer more:

The Good: IGN, Giant Bomb, Game Informer. All I feel give pretty accurate reviews overall based off of my tastes, also they have more mature communities it feels.

The Bad: GameSpot, Machinima, Destructoid. Aside from having dumb communities, these sites don't feel very professional to me. And in the case of Machinima, seems like it's made for one system and not the others.

The Ugly: G4/Xplay, Lens of Truth, Digital Foundry. G4 is just a laughable dumb site, the other two are just flaim bait sites that exist to make fanboys happy.

But all reviews are just opinions, no reason to get mad at people for havind different ones than I do.

ShadowMoses900

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

All reviews are just opinions, but I'll give it a go based off the sites I prefer more:

The Good: IGN, Giant Bomb, Game Informer. All I feel give pretty accurate reviews overall based off of my tastes, also they have more mature communities it feels.

The Bad: GameSpot, Machinima, Destructoid. Aside from having dumb communities, these sites don't feel very professional to me. And in the case of Machinima, seems like it's made for one system and not the others.

The Ugly: G4/Xplay, Lens of Truth, Digital Foundry. G4 is just a laughable dumb site, the other two are just flaim bait sites that exist to make fanboys happy.

But all reviews are just opinions, no reason to get mad at people for havind different ones than I do.

Voyant

Game Informer is a joke? Ok that's like totally your opinion.

IGN get's paid for reviews? Well I think that's obvious, GS get's paid for doing reviews along with EVERY OTHER review site and publication out there. It's their job, what do you think they do for a living? I don't see what you were trying to argue there.

And proof IGN doens't finish games? They didn't finish a game on hard so they didn't unlock the final version of one game, however they did finish the game on normal which is all that is expected. Reviewers don't have the time to play through every mode of every game, they just play them once and that's it.

Do you honestly think GS or anyone else finished Skyrim completely (all side quests, daderic artifacts ect...) before they reviewed it? If you think yes then your just being silly. No one has that much time to do that and then review the game when it's released.

Every review site has ugly moments. Some more then others. All you have to do is read/watch the reviews to judge whether they are good or terrible reviews. Scores don't bother me anymore. 5-6 years ago yes but not now.

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

[QUOTE="Myounage"] There was exclusive content or some crap for the PS3. Sony threatened to pull their ads when Gamespot gave it a crap score, so Gamespot fired the reviewer. Go look it up.ShadowMoses900

yeah i remember that, no wonder why they review some games with "same old formula" and not "innovative" but cod keeps getting 8-9 for their "familiar formula"

It wasn't Sony, they had nothing to do with Kane and Lynch. It was Eidos that threatened to pull ad support, to which GS fired Jeff Gertsman beause he gave his honest opinion on the game. GS was under new managment at the time and they were quite inexperienced and did not know how to handle the matter.

However Gertsman made peace with GS recently and said he wouldn't have done so if GS was still the same. So I think it's changed a bit now. Still I bet ad pressure and "big name title" bias exists within the review industry in all aspects of it to one degree or another.

If you don't think media sites, including game ones, arn't prone to advertising pressure or bias then you are very naive. It happens in all forms of media, not just games. Go watch network news if you don't believe me that bias exists in the media.

never said i didn't think that, in fact i agree with you, but in gs they don't even try to cover it.