Which of these Reviewer you rely most to play a game?

just an opinion

reviewers which?

And to be honest, I don't pay much attention. I enjoy Kevin and Tom's reviews though here.

Yahtzee

Myself

My brother

PC Gamer

Out of the ones you listed, Gamespot.

I think Kevin VanOrd does a great job here on GS. Tom McShea is pretty good most of the time as well. I really only pay attention to Gamespot, IGN, and GameTrailers reiewes

Myself first, hardcore fans of the genre/type of game/series second.

Out of this list none except myself, also I trust Eurogamer and for RPGs, RPG gamer and RPG fan

Why is famitsu even on the list? I can pretty much guarantee you anyone who values their scores here are weeboos. Yes, I said scores because they don't read the reviews, they look at the scores because they can't read any of Japan's written languages.

Whats the point of putting the "yourself" option there? Everyone is going to say they rely on their own opinions.

I've enjoyed more games recommended by fellow forummers at IGN than those recommended by professional reviews. I don't really read reviews anymore. I do watch video reviews when they're available, so I can see the gameplay in relation to what they're saying. This helps me make a more informed decision.

Metacritic.

giantbomb's my main one, other then that i just go off of me and my friends.

Metacritic.

Zanoh

Well opinions vary so I go off what I think looks and sounds fun. I use reviews from ign and GS to guard me from making a bad call from time to time. Saving 60 because I didn't get big rigs etc...

Classic Game Room HD and Ryan Clements from IGN

Of course i trust my own reviews more, but, when it comes to external reviews, i enjoy and trust GS more.

Lol. Apparently, some people here does not trust themselves.

here at GS we play scores, so choosing the option "myself" makes no sense.

I think many of us grow to rely on a certain voice. When it comes to movie reviews, for example, I have found that Owen Glieberman and Lisa Schwarzbaum at Entertainment Weekly often seem films in the same way I do, and so if I am on the fence, I often consult their reviews (as opposed to their letter grades) to determine if the movie is a good fit for Kevin. With games, obviously, I trust in myself as well as my colleagues at GS, perhaps because I am not worried so much about that number as I am about the text that goes along with it.

When I go to outside reviews, I think Eurogamer has a great way of communicating whether or not a game is for me. Again, it isn't about that silly number. It's about how the experience was communicated to me, and whether or not I got an idea of what it was like to play the game. If I am reviewing a game, I don't read any other reviews until I am done, but then I usually take a glance at Metacritic after. I think most critics are curious to see what our peers are saying. When Eurogamer delivers a different kind of take--say, I think it is an 8-range game, and they think it is a 3--I am always anxious to read it, because I know that even if I disagree, they will communicate to me a viable and reasonable evaluation that comes from a very different place. I respect that a lot, and I respect that they take the craft seriously.

As for specific reviewers, Justin Haywald at 1up is one of my favorite reviewers. I have grown to respect Arthur Gies at IGN a great deal. That doesn't mean I always agree with them, but it means they communicate a very real point of view in a very descriptive way. And that's the value of any good review.I don't need a review to be a mirror of my own thoughts. I just need to know that the reviewer has passion for what he wrote, and that the passion and earnestness comes through in the review.

I was going to diss GS, but I fear for my account now...Head_of_games

LOL--diss away. Your account will be fine.

I prefer physical violence, anyway.

(j/k)

(No I'm not.)

A general consensus of game being good or bad does a good job for me.

Ultimately I trust myself. But if I'm on the fence, or if it's a game I never heard of, I really only trust GS and IGN. But it's most important that I just look at the points they make and ask whether or not those would make-or-break a game for me :)

Why is "yourself" an option? The point of reviews is to tell you if you'd like a game or not, or at least describe the game so that you can make your own decision. You can't review a game without having played it, so how can you trust yourself?

I trust GameSpot the most of the ones listed. I feel that IGN generally overrates (that word is seriously overused) games and I rarely agree with them. Famitsu is the one that I trust the least, but that's mainly because of cultural differences.

for me it's the person reviewing not the site. I seem to agree with Kevin's reviews here on GS (demons souls ftw)

I usually get games I'm already interested in and trust the company to deliver, but if I do get a game on a whim I use metacritic and opinions of friends. Sometimes I'll just rely on Game Informer but I don't always agree with them so I prefer an aggregate like MC or Gamerankings.

I think many of us grow to rely on a certain voice. When it comes to movie reviews, for example, I have found that Owen Glieberman and Lisa Schwarzbaum at Entertainment Weekly often seem films in the same way I do, and so if I am on the fence, I often consult their reviews (as opposed to their letter grades) to determine if the movie is a good fit for Kevin. With games, obviously, I trust in myself as well as my colleagues at GS, perhaps because I am not worried so much about that number as I am about the text that goes along with it.

When I go to outside reviews, I think Eurogamer has a great way of communicating whether or not a game is for me. Again, it isn't about that silly number. It's about how the experience was communicated to me, and whether or not I got an idea of what it was like to play the game. If I am reviewing a game, I don't read any other reviews until I am done, but then I usually take a glance at Metacritic after. I think most critics are curious to see what our peers are saying. When Eurogamer delivers a different kind of take--say, I think it is an 8-range game, and they think it is a 3--I am always anxious to read it, because I know that even if I disagree, they will communicate to me a viable and reasonable evaluation that comes from a very different place. I respect that a lot, and I respect that they take the craft seriously.

As for specific reviewers, Justin Haywald at 1up is one of my favorite reviewers. I have grown to respect Arthur Gies at IGN a great deal. That doesn't mean I always agree with them, but it means they communicate a very real point of view in a very descriptive way. And that's the value of any good review.I don't need a review to be a mirror of my own thoughts. I just need to know that the reviewer has passion for what he wrote, and that the passion and earnestness comes through in the review.

I noticed GameInformer fits my opinion of games quite often

If it's a game I've been keeping an eye on/know a lot about, I go with me. If it's in a genre I like but I don't know much about the particular title/series, I use the GS review as a kind of "crib sheet" to give me a basic understanding about a game and help me figure out what questions to ask respected GS members that are knowledgeable in that genre and with that particular game.

[QUOTE="gaming25"] Maybe reading other reviews from other sites wouldnt be so much of a bad thing. I mean, it is always good to see what other things the other reviewers caught or realized that others do not. But I disagree with you on the eurogamer part. I find their reviews that are "controversial" to be ridiculous.Kevin-V

Thats deep Kevin. I agree