Reviewers and Rating Sites

[PlasmaFrog]

Escapist,

Question 1:

How often do you believe that payed reviews are handed out to the general public to either endorse a potentially flunking product or to help boost sells. Obviously, you'd be more interested in a game if it received a perfect score, so why wouldn't publishers slip a bit of money under the table to help ensure that their new release sells well?

Question 2:

Do you think that high review scores are handed out all too commonly now days? Surely, if a title were to receive high acclaims and excellent ratings, it would introduce something new, revolutionary, or even inspiring; you know, just a solid-well rounded game.

Question 3:

Are reviewer sites(Gamespot, IGN, etc.) your common source of information regarding game quality?

 

[TheRussian]

1.
Most reviews that I look at are critic reviews that are generally more coherent that the ramblings of casual gamers. I don't know if any bribery takes place, so I can't really say.

2.
Yes, I think that way too many high scores are handed out, but I expect it is due to lower standards.

3.
I rely on gameplay footage and the recommendation of my peers, but occasionally from Yahtzee.
(All the games that he praised you can safely buy and not be dissapointed)

 

[NerfedFalcon]

2.
Yes, I think that way too many high scores are handed out, but I expect it is due to lower standards.

It's called the 'four point scale'. To quote TV Tropes, critics get 'good, great, excellent and perfect', and if they don't like a game they give it 'good'.

3.
I rely on gameplay footage and the recommendation of my peers, but occasionally from Yahtzee.
(All the games that he praised you can safely buy and not be dissapointed)

Word on this. Although, Painkiller on Steam is bugged and the fifth level won't load. Other than that, everything I've played and he liked was awesome.

 

[DustyDrB]

1. I have no clue. I don't toss around the accusation, though.

2. Numerical scores (and stars, as well as whatever other rating methods there are) are not something I look at to judge whether I want a game or not. I think things would be better without them, but I'm not fussed over inflated scores. More likely than not, the games that would be receiving the scores of 1-4 either are cancelled or are not given attention. Attention is a finite thing, so media outlets will naturally spend it where it's worth it to them.

So in short, we don't see many games get an overwhelmingly poor critical response because those games just aren't being reviewed.

3. I go to Destructoid, The Escapist, Eurogamer, and Kotaku for reviews. I have nothing against IGN, Game Informer, or any of the other more popular outlets though. Those tend to be better places to go for news and previews, as they tend to have more access than smaller outlets.