Game Site Grading

[UndeadAreGo]

I was wondering what sites, other than The Escapist, people trust, like, and/or frequent the most. More specific, what grade (A-D, F)would you give each site on review, news, features, and community? I know that I'm missing quite a few here, but I might as well get this started.

IGN
Reviews- B - Informative, but usually as bland as can be. It seems like they concentrate far too much on technical aspects and not enough on what it actually feels like to play the game. I'm not making accusations, but I also wonder about the journalistic integrity of a site that dedicates one day of every week to praising a game they haven't played.
News- B - They post every scrap of information imaginable, but I'm always left wanting more. It's great that *insert game* is official, but a few opinions on the matter wouldn't hurt.
Features- A - They don't have many features outside of previews, but the articles are always entertaining, informative, and well done.
Community- D - How many more juvenile "Halo 3 vs ____" discussions to I need to have. Oh wait, I can't because I forgot to pay for Insider access.

1up
Reviews- C - Insanely short, which isn't too bad since they still manage to make some great points. My biggest problem is with the irregularity of reviews. No reviews for one week?
News- A - A ton of news, a clean layout, and a nice mix of hard facts and speculation.
Features- B - There's only about one non-preview feature per week, but they're great. They range from intellectual to silly, but even at their most nonsensical, they never pander to the lowest common denominator.
Community- A - There's always something good to talk about on the forums, they have some extremely dedicated bloggers, and the user-base ranges from scrappy kids to other journalists.

HonestGamers
Reviews- A - They don't always have reviews up in time for release, but they are usually worth the wait. Definitely some of the most talented and knowledgeable reviewers around. If you're a burgeoning writer, you can try submitting your own reviews immediately.
News- D - They have news, but it's very erratic. They'll have coverage of the most obscure casual game, but miss some of the most major announcements.
Features- N/A -
Community- B - The forums are pretty quiet, but the blogs are always active with conversation and friendly faces. Extra points for not having a forum-level system.

GameFAQs
Reviews- F - There's some good stuff here, but the majority is absolute crap. If English teachers want to keep their students' attention, they should use GF reviews in their classes as the bad examples.
News- N/A -
Features- N/A -
Community- D - Before you can even get some good conversations going, you'll have to spend days on end posting in the generic forums to build up your level. Once you get access to the inner sanctums, you'll see that GF is a breeding ground for the most immature, leet-speaking kids around.


Maybe I'll get to some more later. What do you think?

 

[MrCrun]

Pretty good. Bang on about the GF forums general immaturity, and since the reviews are user reviews only bang on about those too.
Try Eurogamer next, they're made up of actual proper print journos, mostly from PC Gamer (UK, original and best).
computerandvideogames.com is the PC Gamer website, I would like to know what people think of that.
After that I can only think of Gamespot but I only ever used them for the patch downloads and nothing else.

 

[Sylocat]

Not to mention that GF doesn't even allow user reviews to be submitted by anyone who hasn't built up their levels in the forum. The only thing that site is good for is the FAQs and walkthroughs, and even those are erratic.

 

[MacCarth]

I like gamerankings.com...I'd give their review's an A, but in actuality they really only take an average of what everyone else does.

I'm also unsure of community and news, but it really doesn't make a difference to me. I'd just like to hear what a game got and why and I'm set.

 

[SatansBestBuddy]

GameTrailers

Reviews = A: 90% of the time, their views and mine match up in what such and such a game deserves, and they always have cold, hard, caught on camera proof of the points they make.

News = B: You want to see the trailer for the next big thing everyone's talking about? The site wouldn't be very well named at all if they didn't have hundreds of trailers for pretty much every game you can think of. Which they do.

Features = A: Developer diaries, interviews, that GameOne show I never watch, but always hear good things about, and ScrewAttack videos, which are hit or miss most of the time, but that doesn't stop me from watching them.

Community = C: Some of the user videos are a real treat, like the stuff by MontyOum, and they often bring in the biggest news before the site proper does, but it's fourms are still full of immature idiots and fanboy flames wars left, right, and centre.

 

[Stella Q]

I don't think you're giving gamefaqs a fair shake. Yes, its reviews, news, features, and community are all awful but that's not what the site is about. I have found their FAQs and guides to be an invaluable resource throughout my gaming life.

 

[blackadvent]

Kotaku

Reviews: N/A. They don't review stuff. They give Meta-reviews, they give impressions, but usually not actual reviews. But the impressions they give are detailed and well written.

Let's just give it a B.

News: A-. One of the most respectable game sites on the internet, able to look Sony straight in the eye and make them blink (check Wikipedia for the Sony blackballing). They've also broken a lot of BIG stories.

Features: B. There are interviews every once in a blue moon, and posts about game cakes. They have scavenger hunts that border on 'murderous' difficulty, and then there's the infamous 'Banhammer Mondays'. Speaking of which...

Community: A++. I'm dead serious. You will be hard pressed to find a more mature bunch (Except here, that is.). These people are witty and smart- things that are in short supply on, say, GameFAQs.com. The 'Banhammer Mondays' keep the community that way by banning the immature, ever-cursing prepubescents that we all hate so much.

 

[Chilango2]

Unfortunetly, the only one I have any knowledge of is Gamespot, and I don't trust them at all anymore, ever since recent events, but these impressions were formed before that happened anyway:

Reviews: C
Sure, they review just about everything, and most games get at least a page, sometimes 2, but its been clear for awhile now (even before recent events) that they were very easily wowed by major developers, the shiny graphics, and similar stapled. Going back a few years I'd just check their review quickly for any signs that the game was a real dog (bad controls, bad camera, lots of bugs), if the review as 7.0ish I might love the heck out of it, but if it was a 5 or something then it's probably problematic.

News: B
Yeah, they seem to have news, but alot of that seems to just be Publisher press releases. When is the last time Gamespot had a scoop? Or anything even resembling one?

Features:
C+
Every once in a million years they have these "Gamespot presents.." or somesuch meta features, and those are pretty good, once they did a review of Real Life as though it were a MMORPG that was hilarious. But generally? Even when they say stuff, they have nothing interesting to say.

Community: D-
Part of it is the general look and feel of the site. It's so media and ad heavy its ridiculous, it slows down my computer every time I go there, and my machine isn't *that* old. I would never even dream of, say, visiting their site during work, like I do here. Furthermore, all their community features are hard to use, hard to find, and the community there always struck em as the gaming version of IMDB, random strangers flaming eahc other on the internet.



Features: