Game Reviews: How much stock do you put in them?

[morsdraconis]

IGN is bullshit. They get paid for good reviews just like all the others.

[JeffHCross]

IGN is bullshit. They get paid for good reviews just like all the others.

No they don't.

[morsdraconis]

No they don't.

I'm sorry but giving Grand Theft Auto 4 a fuckin' 10 screams bullshit to me.

And giving Deadly Premonition a fucking 2.0 is inexcusable. That game is an absolute blast. Sure, the graphics look like shit, but it's the dialog and the quirkiness of everyone in the game that truly matters.

I will never visit that site again for giving GTA4 a fuckin' 10 and Deadly Premonition a 2.

[JeffHCross]

Well, I always look at the reviews with a grain (or pile) of salt. Because every author has his own individual quirks and preferences. When I look at the Deadly Premonitions review, it's clear that the author was very disappointed with the game. He was a fan, interested in the game, and was let down.

It actually reads awfully like the reviews you read on other sites of NCAA.

I'll agree that the Deadly Premonition score was low. As for GTA IV, I guess you won't be visiting many sites. The vast majority of reviews gave GTA IV a perfect score. The vast vajority.

[morsdraconis]

Well, I always look at the reviews with a grain (or pile) of salt. Because every author has his own individual quirks and preferences. When I look at the Deadly Premonitions review, it's clear that the author was very disappointed with the game. He was a fan, interested in the game, and was let down.

It actually reads awfully like the reviews you read on other sites of NCAA.

I'll agree that the Deadly Premonition score was low. As for GTA IV, I guess you won't be visiting many sites. The vast majority of reviews gave GTA IV a perfect score. The vast vajority.

Thus my comment about them getting paid for those reviews. NONE of the GTA games are worth more than a 8 or 8.5 in my opinion. When the missions in the game are babysitting some stupid bitch or your freeloading uncle (or whatever the hell the dude was in GTA) along with other stupid shit, how can the game be fun? It's glorified package delivery, shitty car races with HORRIBLE control, and boring side missions. When one of the missions I HAD to do was escort the previously mentioned moron to some strip club for no reason what-so-ever, I put the game down and never touched it again. Why would I want to waste my time doing that?

[JeffHCross]

Wait, so because the majority of sites gave GTA a perfect score, they're all getting paid for their reviews? I don't mean just major sites like Gamespot and IGN ... I mean the vast majority of some 60+ reviews.

Sounds to me more like you don't enjoy GTA. Hence my previous comment about "individual quirks and preferences". If you don't think any of the GTA games are worth more than an 8, then no, you're not going to see GTA IV getting a 10. On the other hand, I enjoyed the hell out of GTA III, so I can see IV getting a 10.

If you need any more proof about sites not getting paid for reviews, Google "Jeff Gerstmann". Now, it'll probably actually give you more evidence that they do, since he got fired, but look at it from the opposite perspective. If they got paid to write reviews, he wouldn't have written that review in the first place.

[morsdraconis]

Wait, so because the majority of sites gave GTA a perfect score, they're all getting paid for their reviews? I don't mean just major sites like Gamespot and IGN ... I mean the vast majority of some 60+ reviews.

Sounds to me more like you don't enjoy GTA. Hence my previous comment about "individual quirks and preferences". If you don't think any of the GTA games are worth more than an 8, then no, you're not going to see GTA IV getting a 10. On the other hand, I enjoyed the hell out of GTA III, so I can see IV getting a 10.

If you need any more proof about sites not getting paid for reviews, Google "Jeff Gerstmann". Now, it'll probably actually give you more evidence that they do, since he got fired, but look at it from the opposite perspective. If they got paid to write reviews, he wouldn't have written that review in the first place.

NO game, no matter how good deserves 100. It's obvious that Rockstar paid these companies to rate the game as such.

Here's a REAL review: http://www.destructoid.com/destructo...iv-86387.phtml

When a game has such GLARING issues as missions that are basically impossible without cheating or getting lucky and the computer AI crashing as well as the targeting system being completely retarded for one of the most essential aspects of the damn game, it's obvious these people were paid to put 100s out there to make people buy the game. 100 means perfect, not flawed, but, IF YOU LIKE GTA, you'll love this game and look past all the shitty flaws.

I WANTED to like the story. I was INCREDIBLY intrigued by the story, but the missions to get more of the story resulted in me not caring enough about the story to sludge through the mediocrity.

[JeffHCross]

A perfect game to one person is not a perfect game to another.

But, okay. I give. They're not paid, but whatever. I can tell I have no way to convince you, so let's agree to disagree.

[AMagicianNamedGOB]

NO game, no matter how good deserves 100. It's obvious that Rockstar paid these companies to rate the game as such.

Here's a REAL review: http://www.destructoid.com/destructo...iv-86387.phtml

When a game has such GLARING issues as missions that are basically impossible without cheating or getting lucky and the computer AI crashing as well as the targeting system being completely retarded for one of the most essential aspects of the damn game, it's obvious these people were paid to put 100s out there to make people buy the game. 100 means perfect, not flawed, but, IF YOU LIKE GTA, you'll love this game and look past all the shitty flaws.

I WANTED to like the story. I was INCREDIBLY intrigued by the story, but the missions to get more of the story resulted in me not caring enough about the story to sludge through the mediocrity.

So this is what I've got: Rockstar games, in conjunction with the saucer people, under the supervision of reverse editors, are forcing websites to publish good reviews in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner. We're through the looking glass here people.

[morsdraconis]

So this is what I've got: Rockstar games, in conjunction with the saucer people, under the supervision of reverse editors, are forcing websites to publish good reviews in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner. We're through the looking glass here people.

Great story there guy. Welcome to TGT.

[JBHuskers]

IIRC GTA IV was the first 10 they gave out in over a decade....then I think they gave another one for MGS IV.

[cdj]

I don't think reviewers get paid, but I don't think they do a very good job, so I agree with morsdraconis on that front. Part of that is their own doing, part of it is the structure in which they work.


- At most, they get a game a week or so early. Don't we all really enjoy most games the first week they are out? However, it's pretty tough to find big issues in that timeframe as well as get through the initial 'glow'.

- Their main goal is to get a review up ASAP by release as that's when the most traffic will come in looking for it.

- The GameSpot "Kane & Lynch" debacle showed there is some shadiness that goes along with reviews, but it wasn't the actual reviewers in on it. I think the way that played out hopefully put a stop on anything like that in the future.

- Reviewers are in a bad spot - overrate a game and they'll get ripped, go too low at launch and they'll get ripped then as well. However, I think they can safely avoid giving any game a 10. No game is perfect and that only sets them up for failure later on.

- I think they get caught up in the hype of games like fans do, hence GTA IV & MGS IV getting 10s.

- Sports reviewers seem to review more from a casual standpoint (which is understandable), but they often neglect to reflect on major issues plaguing the game the year before and also online play in general. UFC 2010 is a solid game, but should have been railed for its online play. However, most review sites didn't even mention online.


Realistically though, how many people base a purchase on a review from a major site? At least in the core community sites, I only see people really touting review scores when they are low.

[JBHuskers]

Mines more out of curiosity. Word of mouth and if it looks good to me lead me to play or buy the game.

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/saw?q=saw

Saw had a metascore of 59, but I thought this was a really fun game to play

http://www.metacritic.com/games/plat...ft%20auto%20iv

Grand Theft Auto IV had a metascore of 98, and I thought it was rather boring and monotonous. The story itself was pretty good, but the gameplay variety wasn't there, and even when they added trophies to the PS3 (you know how much of a whore I am), I barely went back and played it again....just didn't have the drive.

[steelerfan]

I've honestly never purchased a game with a review in mind. I'm not sure why anyone would, but to each his own.

I buy very few games outside of the NCAA, NHL, Madden (except for 10) box though. Every few years I'll get the itch and buy an MLB game (The Show 09) and a CBB game (CH 2k8). Other than that, I get 2-5 games a year and they usually don't disappoint. I guess it's because I know what I'll like without having to be told. I have GTA IV, RDR and the only other shooters I enjoy are the WWII ones (COD 3, COD W@W). I like GH a little but only play Metallica anymore.

I guess, to me, a game either clearly has appeal or it doesn't. I don't need some hack telling me how good/bad it is. Which is to say, I don't put alot of stock in reviews, I don't think they're all paid off (though pressure and temptation can be there) and I agree that whoever writes it knows as little (sometimes less) as I will after having it for a week.

Sports games are typically (IMO) the worst because they're often written (as cdj mentioned) from a casual point of view further rendering them useless to guys like us.

[Rudy]

I don't think IGN gets paid for reviews but I do know the smaller publications get pressured if they get bad reviews. Console Sports is a small website and used to get some 2K games for review. One lousy review later and he was called on the phone by 2K, bitched at, and never got a free or early review copy again. IGN probably doesn't have to worry about it but when you rely on advertising dollars from the same companies you are reviewing there is a conflict of interest.

Overall I think Gamespot does a nice job on reviews. They seem well written and generally fair. I trust them the most. IGN isn't so bad. I think the example of GTA IV getting a great review is a really bad one if you are trying to prove they got paid to give it a great review. Tons of website and more importantly gamers loved that game. It didn't sell millions because of the IGN review. It sold millions based on people's love for the series. Granted, I was bored within an hour and sold the game but my brother and a lot of others loved that game.

I think the metacritic scores are good. 80+ = buy, 90+ = great game, 70s is renter territory and under 70 I avoid. I use them whenever I'm thinking of trying a game I have minimal interest in. Obviously we are all different so a game like GTA IV is considered very over-rated by myself. A game like the Bourne Conspiracy which scored in the low 70s is underrated imo.

For sports games I rely on websites like this for impressions or OS for a sports review.

[JeffHCross]

I'll trust metacritic for general concepts of whether a game is good or bad, but otherwise I don't put much stock in the reviews. If I'm looking at a review of a sequel (which, admittedly, is likely at this point) then I'll look for comparisons to the previous title, and compare the author's feelings about how things have changed to how I felt about the original title. Beyond that, I don't put much into them.

But talking about them getting paid is a quick way to get me on a soapbox.

[morsdraconis]

I'll trust metacritic for general concepts of whether a game is good or bad, but otherwise I don't put much stock in the reviews. If I'm looking at a review of a sequel (which, admittedly, is likely at this point) then I'll look for comparisons to the previous title, and compare the author's feelings about how things have changed to how I felt about the original title. Beyond that, I don't put much into them.

But talking about them getting paid is a quick way to get me on a soapbox.

Soapbox requested.

Wasn't there something a while back about some game review site (GameSpot I think it was) getting paid to not review MGS4 because the developer was afraid of poor reviews ruining their sales or some shit?

I certainly think that there is something between the websites about rating games one way or another to create a sensationalism about that review being bad or good to create more traffic for their websites (thus getting them more money from their advertisers). It certainly seems to me that the pressure of getting the review out first because of the traffic to their website compared to others would result in the reviewer not getting the full extent of the game (especially for RPGs and long adventure games) resulting in poor reviews because they weren't able to get the full feel of the game.

[I OU a Beatn]

Reviews equal literally zero in my equation when deciding to buy a game or not. When looking for games, as long as they fit the genres I like and look like they're quality made from the trailers I watch, then I'll buy it. I'll occasionally look at metacritic, but I've never decided to buy or not buy a game based on review scores.

[JeffHCross]

The only Gamespot controversy I remember was the one I referenced earlier in this thread ... about Kane & Lynch and the reviewer that was fired.

I absolutely agree that the pressure to get the review out first is a large part of the reason we see games like GTA IV rated 10.0. As the Destructoid review you linked said, they took the time to make a thorough review. Only the media sites that get the games really early even have a hope of doing this, and the majority of review sites out there right now aren't part of that.

I certainly don't think reviews are what they should be. And I do think there's a tendency to overrate. I just don't think it does (or could) have anything to do with getting paid.

[JBHuskers]

The only Gamespot controversy I remember was the one I referenced earlier in this thread ... about Kane & Lynch and the reviewer that was fired.

I absolutely agree that the pressure to get the review out first is a large part of the reason we see games like GTA IV rated 10.0. As the Destructoid review you linked said, they took the time to make a thorough review. Only the media sites that get the games really early even have a hope of doing this, and the majority of review sites out there right now aren't part of that.

I certainly don't think reviews are what they should be. And I do think there's a tendency to overrate. I just don't think it does (or could) have anything to do with getting paid.

What exactly happened with Kane & Lynch at Gamespot? I don't recall.