Why Professional Game reviewers cannot be trusted

They review games for two reasons; to be sensationalists and to cater fanboys for sensationalism.

They're not a good objective service for game criiquing and are bias, they rate games for their publicity and marketing hype. It's all just marketing hype, if a game doesn't have enough marketing hype, then they will not score it as high as games that do. Take Kane & Lynch incident at GameSpot for example, Jeff Gerstmann rated the game a 6.0 and he was fired for that becaue Eidos were marketing the game at GameSpot. It is the same way games like Halo 3 and Grand Theft Auto IV recieve high scores of undeserved 10 and 9, a lot of crappy movies games like King Kong and Assault on Dark Athena recieve scores of undeserved 7's and 8.

They review games based on hype, if the game doesn't have enough good hype around them they won't rate it as high as great games like Killer7, XIII, SW The Force Unleashed, and Sacred 2 weren't rated high because they weren't marketed as high as other "AAA" titled games.

It's also fanboyism, if they don't rate a certain high profile console exclusive games with a 10 or a 9 then fanboys will attack them with hate mails so that's why console exclusives like Killzone 2 and halo 3 recieve tens that are undeserved. They're catering towards fanboys all the time.

They're also completely bias as they dismiss first-person shooters like Red Steel, The Conduit, and Haze as generic mediocre shooters while they rate FPS like Resistance, Halo, Crysis, and Killzone 2 high while they're just as mediocre and generic as those games. They also review games for their technical factor instead of fun factor, which is why they rated the overrated GTA IV higher than the underrated Saints Row 2.

It's also about graphics, if a game doesn't have good graphics then they're bashed because of it like Prototype {Which is way better than the overrated inFamous} but games with good graphics but with mediocre gameplay are rated high like Crysis, Doom 3, and Killzone 2.

They also seem to rate them for casual game value so they can keep the consumers stupid and sedated, which explains why casual friendly games like BioShock, Oblivion, and Halo are rated higher than deeper hardcore games like System Shock 2, Morrowind, and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

So don't trust professional reviewers like GameSpot and IGN as they're biased and untrust worthy. Trust only yourself and Yahtzee.

EDIT: Do not trust Jeff Gerstmann too because at GameSpot he rated Halo 3 a 9.5 for being the same game while he scored Twilight Princess a 8.8 by criticizing it for being the same game. Jeff is bias as well too.

Just got "The Conduit" today, I think the review was spot on, not tried the online yet, might bump it up to a 7/10.

But I agree with some things you have said, such as Halo, Red Steel (Should have been 6 or 6.5) etc

Why was this locked and unlocked? >_>Jandurin

Are you an undercover mod? :o , now everything is clear.

They also review games for their technical factor instead of fun factor...

I lol'd at this.

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]Why was this locked and unlocked? >_>loco145

Are you an undercover mod? :o , now everything is clear.

They review games for two reasons; to be sensationalists and to cater fanboys for sensationalism.

They're not a good objective service for game criiquing and are bias, they rate games for their publicity and marketing hype. It's all just marketing hype, if a game doesn't have enough marketing hype, then they will not score it as high as games that do. Take Kane & Lynch incident at GameSpot for example, Jeff Gerstmann rated the game a 6.0 and he was fired for that becaue Eidos were marketing the game at GameSpot. It is the same way games like Halo 3 and Grand Theft Auto IV recieve high scores of undeserved 10 and 9, a lot of crappy movies games like King Kong and Assault on Dark Athena recieve scores of undeserved 7's and 8.

They review games based on hype, if the game doesn't have enough good hype around them they won't rate it as high as great games like Killer7, XIII, SW The Force Unleashed, and Sacred 2 weren't rated high because they weren't marketed as high as other "AAA" titled games.

It's also fanboyism, if they don't rate a certain high profile console exclusive games with a 10 or a 9 then fanboys will attack them with hate mails so that's why console exclusives like Killzone 2 and halo 3 recieve tens that are undeserved. They're catering towards fanboys all the time.

They're also completely bias as they dismiss first-person shooters like Red Steel, The Conduit, and Haze as generic mediocre shooters while they rate FPS like Resistance, Halo, Crysis, and Killzone 2 high while they're just as mediocre and generic as those games. They also review games for their technical factor instead of fun factor, which is why they rated the overrated GTA IV higher than the underrated Saints Row 2.

It's also about graphics, if a game doesn't have good graphics then they're bashed because of it like Prototype {Which is way better than the overrated inFamous} but games with good graphics but with mediocre gameplay are rated high like Crysis, Doom 3, and Killzone 2.

They also seem to rate them for casual game value so they can keep the consumers stupid and sedated, which explains why casual friendly games like BioShock, Oblivion, and Halo are rated higher than deeper hardcore games like System Shock 2, Morrowind, and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

So don't trust professional reviewers like GameSpot and IGN as they're biased and untrust worthy. Trust only yourself and Yahtzee.

g805ge

the only way to totally counter this is to do away with scores all together. forcing people to read the review and no focus on some arbitry number

the only way to totally counter this is to do away with scores all together. forcing people to read the review and no focus on some arbitry number

wayne_kar

"professional reviewers" or "elitist gamers" ????? I can't pick one over the other.

[QUOTE="g805ge"]

They review games for two reasons; to be sensationalists and to cater fanboys for sensationalism.

They're not a good objective service for game criiquing and are bias, they rate games for their publicity and marketing hype. It's all just marketing hype, if a game doesn't have enough marketing hype, then they will not score it as high as games that do. Take Kane & Lynch incident at GameSpot for example, Jeff Gerstmann rated the game a 6.0 and he was fired for that becaue Eidos were marketing the game at GameSpot. It is the same way games like Halo 3 and Grand Theft Auto IV recieve high scores of undeserved 10 and 9, a lot of crappy movies games like King Kong and Assault on Dark Athena recieve scores of undeserved 7's and 8.

They review games based on hype, if the game doesn't have enough good hype around them they won't rate it as high as great games like Killer7, XIII, SW The Force Unleashed, and Sacred 2 weren't rated high because they weren't marketed as high as other "AAA" titled games.

It's also fanboyism, if they don't rate a certain high profile console exclusive games with a 10 or a 9 then fanboys will attack them with hate mails so that's why console exclusives like Killzone 2 and halo 3 recieve tens that are undeserved. They're catering towards fanboys all the time.

They're also completely bias as they dismiss first-person shooters like Red Steel, The Conduit, and Haze as generic mediocre shooters while they rate FPS like Resistance, Halo, Crysis, and Killzone 2 high while they're just as mediocre and generic as those games. They also review games for their technical factor instead of fun factor, which is why they rated the overrated GTA IV higher than the underrated Saints Row 2.

It's also about graphics, if a game doesn't have good graphics then they're bashed because of it like Prototype {Which is way better than the overrated inFamous} but games with good graphics but with mediocre gameplay are rated high like Crysis, Doom 3, and Killzone 2.

They also seem to rate them for casual game value so they can keep the consumers stupid and sedated, which explains why casual friendly games like BioShock, Oblivion, and Halo are rated higher than deeper hardcore games like System Shock 2, Morrowind, and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

So don't trust professional reviewers like GameSpot and IGN as they're biased and untrust worthy. Trust only yourself and Yahtzee.

[/QUOT] don't hate on reviewers just because they have a different oppinion on games then you do

After Gerstmangate, I don't think anyone really has the same recognition for game reviews anymore. I remember how important reviews were before then to the value of a game and also in the fanboy war, but since there's a little attention paid but it pales in comparison to the way it used to be. Prior to Gerstmangate we were able to consider the review according to the person who reviewed it. However since the exodus, all we have are these rather generic journalists who I personally can't be bothered getting to know and understand. LordXelNaga

It is the same way games like Halo 3 and Grand Theft Auto IV recieve high scores of undeserved 10 and 9,...

... SW The Force Unleashed, and Sacred 2 weren't rated high because they weren't marketed as high as other "AAA" titled games.

...They're also completely bias as they dismiss first-person shooters like Red Steel, The Conduit, and Haze as generic mediocre shooters while they rate FPS like Resistance, Halo, Crysis, and Killzone 2 high while they're just as mediocre and generic as those games.

They also seem to rate them for casual game value so they can keep the consumers stupid and sedated, which explains why casual friendly games like BioShock, Oblivion, and Halo are rated higher than deeper hardcore games like System Shock 2, Morrowind, and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

They also review games for their technical factor instead of fun factor, which is why they rated the overrated GTA IV higher than the underrated Saints Row 2.

g805ge

Odd, then, that you would rate Halo 9.5, Halo 3 and Resistance 1 &2 9.0 and SW The Force Unleashed 5.0. It seems to me GS isn't the one being disingenuous here.

As for that last bit, why would they not mark down a game for technical flaws that mar the experience?

Infamous got a 9. I don't think it was hyped that much. It's just that damn good.

And Halo Wars scored a 6.5. They aren't catering to fanboys.

but games with good graphics but with mediocre gameplay are rated high like Crysis, Doom 3, and Killzone 2.

g805ge

I know what games someone hasn't played....

They judge games based off of facts a lot of the time, they don't keep the general consumer in mind. The general consumer normally is not going to care about some bugs and glitches, they are gonna want overall fun level.

for awhile now eversince halo 3 got a 9.5 i have not been reading alot of reviews. Halo 3 was good but a 9.5 for a very poor ending to the story just blows my mind. I listen to a lot more podcast to see what the reviewers and such say about the game before i buy it as they usually talk more in depth about the game. I also look at user reviews a lot more then i use to. I will also talk to my friends about the game.

People in general really cannot be trusted. The world is a bunch of selfish existances that merely co-exist with along side each other. Reviews are just that reviews. They aren't meant to be taken as the bottom line. At least in my opinion.

im less worried about someones bias and more concerned about game co's ability to buy good scores. if a reviewer does or doesn't like a game for their own reasons then fair enough, you can usually read a couple different reviews and get a good idea of the game. but if multiple reviews get bought then we as the consumer are being politely lied to, which i don't appreciate.

You have some pretty valid points and some really bad ones.

I'm totally agree with the way Shooters are reviewed, hype help them a lot in the final score,about Jeff and Zelda, Halo 3, i already noticed that and that's why he isn't my favorite reviewer (it was Alex Navarro for me).

Then again, i'm not agree with everything you said, for example, Valkyria Chronicles and other great games, while they score high they sales weren't that great and not even if Gamespot gave them a 9.5 or a 10 the sales would improve.

In the end, is all a matter of opinions, in enjoy a lot reading/watching reviews, but i hardly let them to impact my decision to buy or not buy a game.

for awhile now eversince halo 3 got a 9.5 i have not been reading alot of reviews. Halo 3 was good but a 9.5 for a very poor ending to the story just blows my mind. I listen to a lot more podcast to see what the reviewers and such say about the game before i buy it as they usually talk more in depth about the game. I also look at user reviews a lot more then i use to. I will also talk to my friends about the game.

njean777

Not sure what to think of this thread to be honest. Really difficult to tell if it is serious or not.

I hate to use this oft overused word, but . . . *sigh*

The TC's post is full of unsubstantiated rumors, anecdotol "evidence", and shows an utter lack of having done any research.

First, through the years, Gamespot has been splattered with advertising for games that went on to score 8 or below, many scoring between 5-7. Movie tie-in games seem to be the most prevelant. Just look at the scores for some of the Harry Potter games or the Hulk, or even the latest Transformer.

Also, Halo Warswas "hyped" to no end on this site and received a 6.5. Dark Athena a 7.0? How long have you been coming to GS, again?

I am sorry; please provide proof that Jeff was fired for giving K & L a low score. If heavily adverstised game=high score or no job, then half of the GS staff should have been fired ages ago (and throw in some of the reviewer from other game sites, mags while you're at it). Actually, having tried to play K & L, I would say Jeff was being very generous giving the game anything greater than a 5.

I hate to use this oft overused word, but . . . *sigh*

The TC's post is full of unsubstantiated rumors, anecdotol "evidence", and shows an utter lack of having done any research.

First, through the years, Gamespot has been splattered with advertising for games that went on to score 8 or below, many scoring between 5-7. Movie tie-in games seem to be the most prevelant. Just look at the scores for some of the Harry Potter games or the Hulk, or even the latest Transformer.

Also, Halo Warswas "hyped" to no end on this site and received a 6.5. Dark Athena a 7.0? How long have you been coming to GS, again?

I am sorry; please provide proof that Jeff was fired for giving K & L a low score. If heavily adverstised game=high score or no job, then half of the GS staff should have been fired ages ago (and throw in some of the reviewer from other game sites, mags while you're at it). Actually, having tried to play K & L, I would say Jeff was being very generous giving the game anything greater than a 5.

WardCleaver02

[QUOTE="WardCleaver02"]

I hate to use this oft overused word, but . . . *sigh*

The TC's post is full of unsubstantiated rumors, anecdotol "evidence", and shows an utter lack of having done any research.

First, through the years, Gamespot has been splattered with advertising for games that went on to score 8 or below, many scoring between 5-7. Movie tie-in games seem to be the most prevelant. Just look at the scores for some of the Harry Potter games or the Hulk, or even the latest Transformer.

Also, Halo Warswas "hyped" to no end on this site and received a 6.5. Dark Athena a 7.0? How long have you been coming to GS, again?

I am sorry; please provide proof that Jeff was fired for giving K & L a low score. If heavily adverstised game=high score or no job, then half of the GS staff should have been fired ages ago (and throw in some of the reviewer from other game sites, mags while you're at it). Actually, having tried to play K & L, I would say Jeff was being very generous giving the game anything greater than a 5.

g805ge

[QUOTE="WardCleaver02"]

I hate to use this oft overused word, but . . . *sigh*

The TC's post is full of unsubstantiated rumors, anecdotol "evidence", and shows an utter lack of having done any research.

First, through the years, Gamespot has been splattered with advertising for games that went on to score 8 or below, many scoring between 5-7. Movie tie-in games seem to be the most prevelant. Just look at the scores for some of the Harry Potter games or the Hulk, or even the latest Transformer.

Also, Halo Warswas "hyped" to no end on this site and received a 6.5. Dark Athena a 7.0? How long have you been coming to GS, again?

I am sorry; please provide proof that Jeff was fired for giving K & L a low score. If heavily adverstised game=high score or no job, then half of the GS staff should have been fired ages ago (and throw in some of the reviewer from other game sites, mags while you're at it). Actually, having tried to play K & L, I would say Jeff was being very generous giving the game anything greater than a 5.

So, which of your favorite games got an undesirable score this time?

[QUOTE="sirkibble2"][QUOTE="g805ge"]Gerstmann is nota good game reviewer!

GunSmith1_basic

Exactly, he destroyed the game, it was painful to read, not because it was bad, but he literally destroyed the game, and yes, you have to be smart in your job, i'm not saying he should give it an 8, but just be smart.

[QUOTE="sirkibble2"][QUOTE="g805ge"]Gerstmann is nota good game reviewer!

GunSmith1_basic

Jeff made is feelings for the game clear, but it wasn't a rant or anywhere close to the way Yahtzee does it. Eidos is a somewhat-talented studio that has a known string of shifty behavior, but we didn't know exactly to what extent until after this went down. Tomb Raider scores, voting for their own games in GOTY awards and this recent Arkham Asylum 'rumor'. You must have a problem with Jeff if you're going to blame him for getting fired by doing his job. He had no duty to be kind or 'tip-toe' around anything.

[QUOTE="njean777"]

for awhile now eversince halo 3 got a 9.5 i have not been reading alot of reviews. Halo 3 was good but a 9.5 for a very poor ending to the story just blows my mind. I listen to a lot more podcast to see what the reviewers and such say about the game before i buy it as they usually talk more in depth about the game. I also look at user reviews a lot more then i use to. I will also talk to my friends about the game.

sirkibble2

Besides that, GS reviews games based on "should you buy this over that." They have a standard and if a game meets or exceeds that standard, it is scored well.

Looks over at Assassins Creed, Bioshock, SSBB, and about every other 9.0+ game on GS...*sighs*...guess that means don't buy 9.0 games because almost every 9.0 game on GS didn't deserve it. I'll stick with my 5-8's I think there more fun.

[QUOTE="GunSmith1_basic"][QUOTE="sirkibble2"] Because he was too honest?strudel420

Jeff made is feelings for the game clear, but it wasn't a rant or anywhere close to the way Yahtzee does it. Eidos is a somewhat-talented studio that has a known string of shifty behavior, but we didn't know exactly to what extent until after this went down. Tomb Raider scores, voting for their own games in GOTY awards and this recent Arkham Asylum 'rumor'. You must have a problem with Jeff if you're going to blame him for getting fired by doing his job. He had no duty to be kind or 'tip-toe' around anything.

UHmmm...that is why reviewers have those things called WORDS formed into paragraphs which talk about what they liked or disliked about the game. If you put all your stock into a single score for a game, and then don't care about or read the WORDS that make up the actual review, then you have nobody but yourself to blame.

It isn't game reviewers fault that many people, apparantly yourself included, don't understand how reviews work.

They review games for two reasons; to be sensationalists and to cater fanboys for sensationalism.

They're not a good objective service for game criiquing and are bias, they rate games for their publicity and marketing hype. It's all just marketing hype, if a game doesn't have enough marketing hype, then they will not score it as high as games that do. Take Kane & Lynch incident at GameSpot for example, Jeff Gerstmann rated the game a 6.0 and he was fired for that becaue Eidos were marketing the game at GameSpot. It is the same way games like Halo 3 and Grand Theft Auto IV recieve high scores of undeserved 10 and 9, a lot of crappy movies games like King Kong and Assault on Dark Athena recieve scores of undeserved 7's and 8.

They review games based on hype, if the game doesn't have enough good hype around them they won't rate it as high as great games like Killer7, XIII, SW The Force Unleashed, and Sacred 2 weren't rated high because they weren't marketed as high as other "AAA" titled games.

It's also fanboyism, if they don't rate a certain high profile console exclusive games with a 10 or a 9 then fanboys will attack them with hate mails so that's why console exclusives like Killzone 2 and halo 3 recieve tens that are undeserved. They're catering towards fanboys all the time.

They're also completely bias as they dismiss first-person shooters like Red Steel, The Conduit, and Haze as generic mediocre shooters while they rate FPS like Resistance, Halo, Crysis, and Killzone 2 high while they're just as mediocre and generic as those games. They also review games for their technical factor instead of fun factor, which is why they rated the overrated GTA IV higher than the underrated Saints Row 2.

It's also about graphics, if a game doesn't have good graphics then they're bashed because of it like Prototype {Which is way better than the overrated inFamous} but games with good graphics but with mediocre gameplay are rated high like Crysis, Doom 3, and Killzone 2.

They also seem to rate them for casual game value so they can keep the consumers stupid and sedated, which explains why casual friendly games like BioShock, Oblivion, and Halo are rated higher than deeper hardcore games like System Shock 2, Morrowind, and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

So don't trust professional reviewers like GameSpot and IGN as they're biased and untrust worthy. Trust only yourself and Yahtzee.

EDIT: Do not trust Jeff Gerstmann too because at GameSpot he rated Halo 3 a 9.5 for being the same game while he scored Twilight Princess a 8.8 by criticizing it for being the same game. Jeff is bias as well too.

g805ge

See, that's where your post falls apart.

Who are you to say that those games did not deserve their scores? Why don't they deserve the scores they received? Because you don't like them? Are you trying to say the reviewers are wrong because they don't share your opinion?

A lot of games fail to see the truth here.

[QUOTE="g805ge"]

They review games for two reasons; to be sensationalists and to cater fanboys for sensationalism.

They're not a good objective service for game criiquing and are bias, they rate games for their publicity and marketing hype. It's all just marketing hype, if a game doesn't have enough marketing hype, then they will not score it as high as games that do. Take Kane & Lynch incident at GameSpot for example, Jeff Gerstmann rated the game a 6.0 and he was fired for that becaue Eidos were marketing the game at GameSpot. It is the same way games like Halo 3 and Grand Theft Auto IV recieve high scores of undeserved 10 and 9, a lot of crappy movies games like King Kong and Assault on Dark Athena recieve scores of undeserved 7's and 8.

They review games based on hype, if the game doesn't have enough good hype around them they won't rate it as high as great games like Killer7, XIII, SW The Force Unleashed, and Sacred 2 weren't rated high because they weren't marketed as high as other "AAA" titled games.

It's also fanboyism, if they don't rate a certain high profile console exclusive games with a 10 or a 9 then fanboys will attack them with hate mails so that's why console exclusives like Killzone 2 and halo 3 recieve tens that are undeserved. They're catering towards fanboys all the time.

They're also completely bias as they dismiss first-person shooters like Red Steel, The Conduit, and Haze as generic mediocre shooters while they rate FPS like Resistance, Halo, Crysis, and Killzone 2 high while they're just as mediocre and generic as those games. They also review games for their technical factor instead of fun factor, which is why they rated the overrated GTA IV higher than the underrated Saints Row 2.

It's also about graphics, if a game doesn't have good graphics then they're bashed because of it like Prototype {Which is way better than the overrated inFamous} but games with good graphics but with mediocre gameplay are rated high like Crysis, Doom 3, and Killzone 2.

They also seem to rate them for casual game value so they can keep the consumers stupid and sedated, which explains why casual friendly games like BioShock, Oblivion, and Halo are rated higher than deeper hardcore games like System Shock 2, Morrowind, and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

So don't trust professional reviewers like GameSpot and IGN as they're biased and untrust worthy. Trust only yourself and Yahtzee.

EDIT: Do not trust Jeff Gerstmann too because at GameSpot he rated Halo 3 a 9.5 for being the same game while he scored Twilight Princess a 8.8 by criticizing it for being the same game. Jeff is bias as well too.

The_Game21x

See, that's where your post falls apart.

Who are you to say that those games did not deserve their scores? Why don't they deserve the scores they received? Because you don't like them? Are you trying to say the reviewers are wrong because they don't share your opinion?