Which game reviewers opinions do you trust.

[Gennadios]

I'd trust the metacritic average user score for suggestions on where to put my hard earned money than the average reviewer. Too much shit not worth my time has been getting >80% lately.

I do find that when Yahtze or Jim Sterling bring up an issue with a given game, chances are I'll feel similarly about it, but even they seem to miss issues that bug the hell out of me .

 

[Xanadu84]

The average of a large sample of reviewers is quite a reliable measure, taking into account that this average score will weigh polish and production values more heavilly then I do, and innovation less. Which is to say they still value both, just crazy new ideas might have a slightly clumsy execution, and be marked down more then a safe, uninspired but high quality game. Really, take metacritic and treat the average scores as a letter grade and it is remarkably accurate.

 

[J Tyran]

None really, a lot of reviewers or review sites are corporate suck ups and there are as many who seem to deliberately provoke a shockingly negative review to get page views. The you have the incompetent reviewers that cant play games and blame the game for their failure, or the dismiss mechanics that they where unable to understand or execute.

The good reviewers out there don't really suit my taste in games either, this means I cannot turn to them. Generally I will use reviews to see if a game has technical problems like game breaking bugs and play a demo or check gameplay videos to see if I might like something.

 

[Bvenged]

Jim Sterling is on the ball more often than other reviewers; and I thought the old PCZone magazine had bang-on reviews. They even gave a "Dump" award to really bad games, AAA title or not, which was badged as a silhouette of a man taking a dump.

Other than that I take all reviews with a massive pinch of salt. But my favourite place for reviews is Amazon. I read as many as I can from each star rating then contrast it to what I thought to make up my own opinion.

To even out the sides, I think IGN reviews are total bullshit most of the time, though with Ninja Gaiden 3 (3/10), whoever reviewed that should be given a medal for his/her bravery.

 

[Fappy]

The ones without numerical scores.

This. I know many reviewers are required to do this by their publisher, but I have extra respect for those that don't feel the need to use them in their personal reviews.

 

[Muspelheim]

Yatzee, even if I do enjoy most of the games he tears apart. I (sort of) know what he likes, and I know what I like, so it's fairly easy to calculate how much fun I'd have with a given game.

As for other game reviews, it's always worth giving them a read, to get a bigger picture. Even if you don't agree. If you only seek out what you agree with, then how on earth to do expect to hear something new, or something you didn't already know?

I don't pay much attention to the numerical results, however. It just seems like a way to pacify fanboys, or whipping them into fury if it's not stellar enough. Honestly, no game deserves a perfect ten. No-one.

 

[Gorilla Gunk]

If I took Yahtzee's opinions seriously and based my game purchases around them I'd only get to play like 2 games a year.

Anywho, I tend to read Destructoid, Eurogamer, and Xplays reviews, then do as much research on the game as possible like see how replayable it is, how long it takes to complete, which version performs better, etc. before finally making a decision.