What Review Source(s) do You Prefer?

[Tharticus]

The Escapist reviews and Zero Punctuation.

 

[T-Bone24]

GamesRadar, I seem to trust them somehow. That and they have a "Good bits, bad bits" section. Them and GamesMaster magazine. They're the same company!

If I'm really desparate though I just check Metacritic.

 

[Cpt Link128]

As a rule I tend to start with xplay. They're usually descriptive enough that you can ignore their rating and still know.

 

[soren7550]

I usually go by Game Informer and X-Play. But if I want a laugh, I'll turn to Yahtzee and/or Arkmake21/NicotineAlien/BoxedEntertainment.

 

[Nmil-ek]

Me and my friends, occasionaly spoonyone.

 

[Gamer137]

Demos. If there are no demos, my own intuition based off what I read from forums. Not reviews, and I flat out refuse to listen to "professional" ones.

 

[The_Deleted]

I prefer friends and/or Yahtzee. My friends usually like the same thing and Yahtzee reviews games really well.

If you only listen to him, you'd still be playing PoP and DN: Forever.
I tend to check out Metacritic to get an overall idea, but pay special attention to the lower scores to see why they scored poorly. Particularly if it only got average scores.
That said, a lot of Essential games bore the crap out of me.

 

[rockingnic]

I get my facts mostly from IGN and Game Informer but I never listen to their whole opinion on some types of games. For the most part I only trust myself to pick what a good game is about 95% of the time.

 

[pigeon_of_doom]

Metacritic mostly. You honestly CANNOT put all your trust into ONE reviewer.

So you put all your trust in an aggregate of untrustworthy opinions?

I just read through different site's reviews to get a general flavour of the game and decide if it sounds fun or if I'd like it.

 

[Shepard's Shadow]

X-Play and occasionaly user reviews. But if I like a game, I will get it regardless of what others say about it.

 

[The_Deleted]

Metacritic mostly. You honestly CANNOT put all your trust into ONE reviewer.

So you put all your trust in an aggregate of untrustworthy opinions?

I just read through different site's reviews to get a general flavour of the game and decide if it sounds fun or if I'd like it.

It's not about blind trust, it's about weighing up pros & cons.
Not many of us can just blindly spunk £45 on the off chance a game will be good. Particularly an unknown quantity.
Seriously Ghostbusters was averaging £44.99 on release day. WTF?!

 

[Grayl]

So you put all your trust in an aggregate of untrustworthy opinions?

Well... no. Metacritic adds up and averages all the CRITIC reviews out there. If I buy a game that IGN gives 9/10 and then hate it, where-as Gamespot gives it 6/10 (hypthetically, of course) then realistically I should've gone with Gamespot's review. But I don't know that until after I've bought the game.

I don't like putting, as The_Deleted said, £45 on a game that I might not like. So instead of taking ONE person's review, I take the majority of reviewer's opinions and pool them into one average. Then I watch a few video reviews (Gametrailers have good ones) and decide then whether I buy it or not.

 

[pigeon_of_doom]

Well... no. Metacritic adds up and averages all the CRITIC reviews out there.

I understand how Metacritic works. I misread your post and interpreted it as you distrusting reviewers in general. Although I don't put too much stock in critics either. So they're professional reviewers, does it necessarily follow they are more trustworthy? Metacritic does iron out a lot of the maverick reviewers but imo it gives a sanitised rather than truer representation of a game's quality.

 

[darthzew]

Giantbomb, GameInformer, and Yahtzee.

I used to have Gamespot in that list but now that site has become a hell complete with bad writers, especially terrible reviewers, and the worst fanboys this side of hades.

Anyway, Giantbomb does the best job of telling it to me straight whether I'll like a game or not. It also has a certain personal touch that no other site really gives.

GameInformer is a good technical review site and Yahtzee tends to see things differently from anyone else.

 

[pantsoffdanceoff]

Giantbomb, GameInformer, and Yahtzee.

I used to have Gamespot in that list but now that site has become a hell complete with bad writers, especially terrible reviewers, and the worst fanboys this side of hades.

Anyway, Giantbomb does the best job of telling it to me straight whether I'll like a game or not. It also has a certain personal touch that no other site really gives.

GameInformer is a good technical review site and Yahtzee tends to see things differently from anyone else.

I'm gonna check out Giantbomb but I'd have to disagree with GI. They've made some appallingly bad calls lately so I can't trust them as much anymore.

 

[Vorpals]

I prefer rentals and demos, but when I can't get those, I use IGN and Gameinformer.

 

[darthzew]

Giantbomb, GameInformer, and Yahtzee.

I used to have Gamespot in that list but now that site has become a hell complete with bad writers, especially terrible reviewers, and the worst fanboys this side of hades.

Anyway, Giantbomb does the best job of telling it to me straight whether I'll like a game or not. It also has a certain personal touch that no other site really gives.

GameInformer is a good technical review site and Yahtzee tends to see things differently from anyone else.

I'm gonna check out Giantbomb but I'd have to disagree with GI. They've made some appallingly bad calls lately so I can't trust them as much anymore.

GI isn't what they used to be. I don't rely on them quite like I used to, but I find them better than most.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

No outlet in particular. Yahtzee is useless for buying decisions as he doesn't review games properly and my opinions are better anyway. Some reviewers like Kieron Gillen and Tom Chick are useful because I know their tastes and that they know their onions.

 

[Lord Beautiful]

I look at whatever reviews I can find.

 

[Grayl]

I understand how Metacritic works. I misread your post and interpreted it as you distrusting reviewers in general. Although I don't put too much stock in critics either. So they're professional reviewers, does it necessarily follow they are more trustworthy? Metacritic does iron out a lot of the maverick reviewers but imo it gives a sanitised rather than truer representation of a game's quality.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I never really look too much into reviews, to be honest. I guess that's why I use Metacritic. I NEVER buy a game without looking at footage, usually on YouTube or something, and by then I've usually looked up everything about the game.

You can't really trust anyone's opinion apart from your own these days. Who knows how many developers buy out review sites? Plus, everyone experiences games differently. Yahtzee hates SSBB, but I think it's the best fighting game ever made.

Personally, I think they should just release demo's for EVERY game that gets made. We'd get less pirates and people would actually be able to try out a game rather than having to put all of their eggs into one random review that they usually trust.