Why are people so worried about reviews?

I really don't get it. Reviews don't mean jack to me. I mean look at the monster hunter series they all got 5's out of 10's. Yeah you can give Halo and stuff a good 9/10, but that is really determined in the minds of the individuals that work at that gaming website. Everybody's different. i'm just tired of people saying "Well i'm not sure about this one I'll have to see what review it gets when it comes out even though I already have a good guess because i've played the demo". Demos can be misleading, but you are playing what the company has to offer whether not it is 100 % done or not. I just don't understand why people can't make their minds up on there own, but instead someone else holds their hand and tells them whether it's good or not.Xerrith

I resent any reviewer who claimed that any Monster Hunter game "needs" a lock on feature, IF BLOODY DOESN'T, that would ruin the game and make the combat far too easy. Too many people these days assume that because a game is hard, it's crap, which is far from true, all the MH games just have a steep difficulty curve, which is fine IMO, I love the games. Once you get past the level 3 quests the game picks up tremendously.

I wish people would play games for longer before proclaiming "ITZ TEH SUCK"

I always want people to like games that I like, and I think a lot of people feel that way. I remember when I played the World in Conflict beta. It was the first game I had really followed prior to release, it was the first beta of a game I had ever played. I almost felt like I discovered the game, because there wasn't a ton of buzz for it, even though I thought it kicked total ass. I remember waiting for weeks for the review, and when it got good reviews I was really happy, because professionals shared my opinion.

And really, even though it is all opinion, being professionals their opinions do have more weight than you or I. That's why I always read reviews before buying a game unless I've played a stellar demo/beta. Professional people generally do know what they're talking about, but that's not all I take into consideration. If I hadn't read Game Informer's glowing 9.5 review of Assassin's Creed, I wouldn't have bought it. I would have rented it, which is what I should have done. So reviews of course are opinion, but they do help in deciding which games to buy. And like I said, everyone's happy when they know others share their passion.

Reviewers are meant give individuals their synopsis on a game. Most people just take reviews as reference and go by their personal taste to buy a game. There only a few people who really care about them.

So stop stressing yourself over the small amount of people who do care about reviews, because your one of them.

Reviewers are meant give individuals their synopsis on a game. Most people just take reviews as reference and go by their personal taste to buy a game. There only a few people who really care about them.

So stop stressing yourself over the small amount of people who do care about reviews, because your one of them.

Hanzo175

Wrong, thousands of people care, it's strange how these peoples ideas of a great game consists of how many perfect reviews it got.

I always want people to like games that I like, and I think a lot of people feel that way. I remember when I played the World in Conflict beta. It was the first game I had really followed prior to release, it was the first beta of a game I had ever played. I almost felt like I discovered the game, because there wasn't a ton of buzz for it, even though I thought it kicked total ass. I remember waiting for weeks for the review, and when it got good reviews I was really happy, because professionals shared my opinion.

And really, even though it is all opinion, being professionals their opinions do have more weight than you or I. That's why I always read reviews before buying a game unless I've played a stellar demo/beta. Professional people generally do know what they're talking about, but that's not all I take into consideration. If I hadn't read Game Informer's glowing 9.5 review of Assassin's Creed, I wouldn't have bought it. I would have rented it, which is what I should have done. So reviews of course are opinion, but they do help in deciding which games to buy. And like I said, everyone's happy when they know others share their passion.

resident-shell

Precisely. For the most part, people want their own opinions validated by those that are considered experts. That way, they too feel like an expert. Personally, if I notice a game got really good reviews, I'll rent it, borrow it, or play the demo. I've been glad in the past when I rented or borrowed a game (Assassin's Creed, Oblivion) only to find out that I thought it sucked. But games with good ratings will still pique my interest... like Braid, for example. I still want to check that game out.

Simple. People don't want to waste their money. If "game A" gets a 5 from most sites and and "game B" gets a 10 from most sites, what would you choose. Higher rated games usually have more replay value and online multiplayer.

.

I treat game reviews like movie reviews.... if the critics love it, I usually avoid it ;)

There should be more emphasis on who each reviewer is.

I think GS should introduce this feature....

Have each reviewer on their own page and a list of all his/her reviews and scores. Then, when you have rated a minimum amount of games, it should link you to the reviewer that you have the most ratings in common with. So if you rate a bunch of games highly or very low and those scores are close to one reviewers scores, then it would give you an idea that you see games similarly and so you'd be more likely to enjoy other games they recommend, or you'd know to avoid games they do not enjoy.

Alternately, if you see a reviewer that rates all your favourite games lowly and loves all the games you hate, you'll know that you have different tastes and so you wont let them influence your game purchases (unless you buy every game they hate!! )

As it is right now though.... I dont listen to reviewers at all. It may not work right, but I do have my own mind!

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with reviews as they give you an insight into the game before you can play it. The problem is though that people just look at the score and decide wether it s good or bad because of that, when really they should take into account the features talked about in the review and make a decision on wether it is the kind of game they can enjoy.

It all stems from the fact we are all to easily influenced by the media.

It's not necessarily the score that matters. Some people actually read the reviews to get their opinion on the game. It's certainly better than wasting your money on a crap game.RockysCatnipCo

Yeah, it seems people never actually discuss why a game got it's score, but only the score it recieved.

Simple. People don't want to waste their money. If "game A" gets a 5 from most sites and and "game B" gets a 10 from most sites, what would you choose. Higher rated games usually have more replay value and online multiplayer.

.

InjuredNoodle

I really don't get it. Reviews don't mean jack to me. I mean look at the monster hunter series they all got 5's out of 10's. Yeah you can give Halo and stuff a good 9/10, but that is really determined in the minds of the individuals that work at that gaming website. Everybody's different. i'm just tired of people saying "Well i'm not sure about this one I'll have to see what review it gets when it comes out even though I already have a good guess because i've played the demo". Demos can be misleading, but you are playing what the company has to offer whether not it is 100 % done or not. I just don't understand why people can't make their minds up on there own, but instead someone else holds their hand and tells them whether it's good or not.Xerrith

The trick is to find a reviewer who likes and dislikes similar games to your own opinions. That way when a new game comes out that they review you can know if the game sounds like something you would like or not, better than reading the review of some totally random person. But this only comes with time and after reading a lot of reviews.

I also like to use sites like Metacritic, as rather than reviewing games, they collate the results of loads of other sites to form a general opinion of a game. There will always be sites giving out high or low results, but their overall average rarely lies or is misleading.

Reviews give a small idea what a game is like. It's definitely sad to see someone who buys games only based on reviews. They'd be missing out on tons of great games.

I usually know whether or not I want a game before it comes out. I'll just read about the game, find out how it plays, what it is about, and other things along those lines.

I will read reviews from time to time just for the fun of it, but I personally could care less about them. If I really want to read reviews for games I'm unsure about, I read reviews by average people; not "experts". I personally think average people write better reviews than most "experts", and find them to be much more enjoyable to read. :)

I never hang all my hopes on a good review....I do a ton of research into the game, if a demo is available, try it out, and read multiple reviews....

If a good majority of reviews are negative....that has to say something about the game....What I like about reviews, is that generally, the reviewer is not playing a demo of the game...they are playing the full-version of the game and they play it a lot....

The demo doesn't have everything in it....I always read the reviews to see if they say something that I know I will not like about the game...I don't always just go by the score.