Which games journalists are still trustworthy apart from Yahtzee

[SimuLord]

Then again, ALL journalists are biased by their own tastes, you're best bet is to pay attention to the individual reviewer and see how close their tastes are to what you like/don't like. If both you and a reviewer have the same "Best Games Ever" superstar tagteam lineup, chances are if they call a game good, you will like it.

This is why I tend to trust the word of Jason Ocampo at IGN (formerly of Gamespot before the Gerstmann exodus) and Dave "Fargo" Kosak at Gamespy.

Incidentally, there is a corollary to your "superstar tag team" rule; if a reviewer hates certain elements of a genre that you love, he will be the south pole on your buying compass. Allen Rausch at Gamespy is like this for me whenever he discusses city-building games; his niggling annoyances are my "depth" and if he gives a game a 3-star review it's a near mortal lock I'm going to have it in my Top 25 Ever list at some point.

 

[Kikosemmek]

The only trustworthy thing you can find about a game is an FAQ page that talks about the type of game it is and its features.

Decide for yourself.

 

[Neosage]

Trust no-one...especialy yhatzee.

 

[Caliostro]

I love how so many people put on their pretentious hats, hop on their high horses and are quick to discredit yahtzee because the way he reviews is funny.

Ready for a shock? Comedy is one of the most effective ways to get a message across uncensored.

Jon Stewart's Daily Show is a more reliable source of information than Fox News, or the crushing majority of the "news media" to be entirely honest.


Care for a bigger shock? Yahtzee's a more reliable source of info than almost any other gaming site out there.

Why? Because while Yahtzee is payed by The Escapist to go buy a game and review it - end of story-, most gaming magazines/websites rely on companies sending them previews and demos to evaluate and general public acceptance to sell their magazines. This means they have to be nice, and politically correct more often than not.

What does that mean you ask? Well, for instances the "4-point-rating-system" phenomenon, or games that suck a gigantic pile of shit being labeled as "mediocre". These magazines and websites will focus mostly on the good things, because they HAVE to, and slightly mention the bad things except in the really bad cases.

You'll very rarely see one of these magazines honestly say "well, you know what? The combat in this game was a piece of shit and I didn't have the slightest bit of fun playing it. Don't buy it. Do yourself a favor. You'd be better off buying a gun to kill yourself with.". What you end up with is a bunch of flowery comments and trying to compare which of the games is "less good".

Yahtzee doesn't have this, Yahtzee does the opposite, because he CAN. Yahtzee will straight up tell you "I hated the guts out of the camera system and I hope it burns in hell watching it's mother get raped by Satan himself.". Yahtzee does what's actually important by pointing out the BAD and good things alike.

Wanna fault him for anything? Fault him for giving his audience way too much credit. He actually expects the majority of people to understand a good review should be something based on the reviewer's educated personal opinion of the game, without half-assed numbers at the end, just a "I liked this, this and this because of this, and I hated this, this and this because of this".

I'm sorry, but most people just aren't this smart. I'm reminded of it everytime I see those ignorant "IF YOU GO BY YAHTZEE YOU ONLY BUY [5 names]!!" comments. He recommends a shitload of games, but he only gives that metaphorical "shiny golden star" to a select few, and he does trash a good amount of other games. The way it should be.

I could go on forever, but yeah, you get the point... I hope.

 

[whyarecarrots]

I mostly agree, although there is one thing I do disagree on. Yahtzee doesn't really mention positives of games; he spends all his time taking apart the flaws. In fact, I'd go so far to say that his most objective reviews are of the games that he really likes; he points out the flaws and then says why he doesn't feel they ruin the game; with most other game reviews (bioshock, HL2 ep2, etc), he spends most of his time attacking it and still states that he enjoys it, giving a few brief points to explain why.

(I hope that makes sense... )

 

[Amnestic]

I love how so many people put on their pretentious hats, hop on their high horses and are quick to discredit yahtzee because the way he reviews is funny.

That's not why I discredit him at all. The title of this thread is "Which games journalists are trustworthy apart from Yahtzee". The OP then proceeds to state that Yahtzee delivers "reliable criticism." To which I take an opposing view. Yahtzee delivers criticism but as with every single reviewer out there without fail it is biased criticism. As such, he is neither trustworthy nor reliable, same as with every other critic/reviewer. The only person you can trust to tell you whether a game is good or not is yourself.

Yahtzee 'tells it like it is'? No, he tells it like it is to him.

 

[Caliostro]

I love how so many people put on their pretentious hats, hop on their high horses and are quick to discredit yahtzee because the way he reviews is funny.

That's not why I discredit him at all. The title of this thread is "Which games journalists are trustworthy apart from Yahtzee". The OP then proceeds to state that Yahtzee delivers "reliable criticism." To which I take an opposing view. Yahtzee delivers criticism but as with every single reviewer out there without fail it is biased criticism. As such, he is neither trustworthy nor reliable, same as with every other critic/reviewer. The only person you can trust to tell you whether a game is good or not is yourself.

Yahtzee 'tells it like it is'? No, he tells it like it is to him.

A reliable reviewer is a reviewer that gives his honest impression of a game. One that's not heavily "embellished" due to peer pressure or because it has to meet some unwritten quota of political correctness. Yahtzee delivers that.

Yeah, all opinions are subjective. We know. Want a cake? But here's the catch: a review should never be the deciding factor in you buying a game or not just because of the reviewer gave it a certain score or thumbs up/down. A review should let you know what someone else liked and disliked in the game and why, so you can have a better idea of whether or not your opinion might be similar.

When a reviewer says "this game is a 9.7/10! GO BUY IT!" it means NOTHING. It's merely an indicator of a poor review. When a review says "The combat in this Final Fantasy game was bad because it was like all other FF games!" it tells you something: "Do you like FF combat in previous editions? Yes? Then this should be good. No? Then you probably won't like this one either."

 

[Amnestic]

I love how so many people put on their pretentious hats, hop on their high horses and are quick to discredit yahtzee because the way he reviews is funny.

That's not why I discredit him at all. The title of this thread is "Which games journalists are trustworthy apart from Yahtzee". The OP then proceeds to state that Yahtzee delivers "reliable criticism." To which I take an opposing view. Yahtzee delivers criticism but as with every single reviewer out there without fail it is biased criticism. As such, he is neither trustworthy nor reliable, same as with every other critic/reviewer. The only person you can trust to tell you whether a game is good or not is yourself.

Yahtzee 'tells it like it is'? No, he tells it like it is to him.

A reliable reviewer is a reviewer that gives his honest impression of a game. One that's not heavily "embellished" due to peer pressure or because it has to meet some unwritten quota of political correctness. Yahtzee delivers that.

Yeah, all opinions are subjective. We know. Want a cake? But here's the catch: a review should never be the deciding factor in you buying a game or not just because of the reviewer gave it a certain score or thumbs up/down. A review should let you know what someone else liked and disliked in the game and why, so you can have a better idea of whether or not your opinion might be similar.

When a reviewer says "this game is a 9.7/10! GO BUY IT!" it means NOTHING. It's merely an indicator of a poor review. When a review says "The combat in this Final Fantasy game was bad because it was like all other FF games!" it tells you something: "Do you like FF combat in previous editions? Yes? Then this should be good. No? Then you probably won't like this one either."

Do you know that Yahtzee delivers that? How do you know that he's not being told to give some extra criticism to a game to generate a bit more flow traffic for the Escapist? Or that a game developer slipped him a few hundred Australian dollars to embellish a few extra points of their game?

You don't, the only thing you have to go on is some ridiculous trust you've placed in some guy you've never met and the word of said guy you've never met. For all you and I know he could be as corrupt as Gamespot. He attracts people with bile and has the freedom to occasionally remark on points he enjoys, as such he has more than enough freedom to take the money and never get caught out, no?

You have no bloody idea if "Yahtzee delivers that", and nor do I. Nor do I have any evidence or idea that he does not. The point is that the possibility exists and thus:
He is not reliable.

 

[Hearthing]

I trust myself and the ability to rent a game rather then outright purchasing it.

A smart person, well after all the other tosh on here it's nice to know someone has more than just the two braincells.

Scores mean nothing, kiddies, remember that.

I can give a score! I ken review!

Although whoever said about all journalists being biased, totally right. Anything for the money.

 

[Syphonz]

I love how so many people put on their pretentious hats, hop on their high horses and are quick to discredit yahtzee because the way he reviews is funny.

That's not why I discredit him at all. The title of this thread is "Which games journalists are trustworthy apart from Yahtzee". The OP then proceeds to state that Yahtzee delivers "reliable criticism." To which I take an opposing view. Yahtzee delivers criticism but as with every single reviewer out there without fail it is biased criticism. As such, he is neither trustworthy nor reliable, same as with every other critic/reviewer. The only person you can trust to tell you whether a game is good or not is yourself.

Yahtzee 'tells it like it is'? No, he tells it like it is to him.

A reliable reviewer is a reviewer that gives his honest impression of a game. One that's not heavily "embellished" due to peer pressure or because it has to meet some unwritten quota of political correctness. Yahtzee delivers that.

Yeah, all opinions are subjective. We know. Want a cake? But here's the catch: a review should never be the deciding factor in you buying a game or not just because of the reviewer gave it a certain score or thumbs up/down. A review should let you know what someone else liked and disliked in the game and why, so you can have a better idea of whether or not your opinion might be similar.

When a reviewer says "this game is a 9.7/10! GO BUY IT!" it means NOTHING. It's merely an indicator of a poor review. When a review says "The combat in this Final Fantasy game was bad because it was like all other FF games!" it tells you something: "Do you like FF combat in previous editions? Yes? Then this should be good. No? Then you probably won't like this one either."

Do you know that Yahtzee delivers that? How do you know that he's not being told to give some extra criticism to a game to generate a bit more flow traffic for the Escapist? Or that a game developer slipped him a few hundred Australian dollars to embellish a few extra points of their game?

You don't, the only thing you have to go on is some ridiculous trust you've placed in some guy you've never met and the word of said guy you've never met. For all you and I know he could be as corrupt as Gamespot. He attracts people with bile and has the freedom to occasionally remark on points he enjoys, as such he has more than enough freedom to take the money and never get caught out, no?

You have no bloody idea if "Yahtzee delivers that", and nor do I. Nor do I have any evidence or idea that he does not. The point is that the possibility exists and thus:
He is not reliable.

OH SNAP! I completly agree. Can't argue with that.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

Although whoever said about all journalists being biased, totally right. Anything for the money.

What if they aren't making any money like the Escapist Guest Reviewers or the indie journos?

 

[Caliostro]

Do you know that Yahtzee delivers that? How do you know that he's not being told to give some extra criticism to a game to generate a bit more flow traffic for the Escapist? Or that a game developer slipped him a few hundred Australian dollars to embellish a few extra points of their game?

You don't, the only thing you have to go on is some ridiculous trust you've placed in some guy you've never met and the word of said guy you've never met. For all you and I know he could be as corrupt as Gamespot. He attracts people with bile and has the freedom to occasionally remark on points he enjoys, as such he has more than enough freedom to take the money and never get caught out, no?

You have no bloody idea if "Yahtzee delivers that", and nor do I. Nor do I have any evidence or idea that he does not. The point is that the possibility exists and thus:
He is not reliable.

Think about it like this: Yahtzee you're not sure whether or not is "dirty", almost every other game magazine and website, you KNOW they are. Besides, have you listened to his reviews...? Or just trolling because you're bored? "Yes Yahtzee? This is Blizzard's CEO... We'd like to pay you a large sum to not trash our game as badly...."-abbawha?

I have actually played a few of the games he reviewed, and he was spot on. I actually listen to what he says and think whether it makes sense or not based on personal experience... I know it sounds complicated, but try to...

I'd ask if you bothered to read the rest of my post, but clearly you didn't, so here ya go:

Yeah, all opinions are subjective. We know. Want a cake? But here's the catch: a review should never be the deciding factor in you buying a game or not just because of the reviewer gave it a certain score or thumbs up/down. A review should let you know what someone else liked and disliked in the game and why, so you can have a better idea of whether or not your opinion might be similar.

When a reviewer says "this game is a 9.7/10! GO BUY IT!" it means NOTHING. It's merely an indicator of a poor review. When a review says "The combat in this Final Fantasy game was bad because it was like all other FF games!" it tells you something: "Do you like FF combat in previous editions? Yes? Then this should be good. No? Then you probably won't like this one either."

There ya go.

 

[wewontdie11]

I don't really trust most of the big reviewers too much as they tend to be easily swayed by money. I vaguely recall that there was a reviewer not so long ago who got sacked because he gave a bad review to a game being advertised in his magazine.

I enjoy watching a little gaming podcast on youtube called NoobToob. It's just two guys, Tobin and Yuzo, who review three or four games once a week and post their views on youtube. Because they are independent and only get money from donations they receive through their forum site, they don't bullshit or play up big games simply because of the anticipation or hype. I gotta say I agree with a hell of a lot of what they have to say as well. At the end of each game discussion they also give a simple thumbs down, thumbs up rental or thumbs up buy to whether they think it's worth getting, which although a little over simplistic, is often what most people want to hear. They are also usually funny as hell and definitely worth checking out as most of you probably haven't heard of them before.

 

[Amnestic]

Do you know that Yahtzee delivers that? How do you know that he's not being told to give some extra criticism to a game to generate a bit more flow traffic for the Escapist? Or that a game developer slipped him a few hundred Australian dollars to embellish a few extra points of their game?

You don't, the only thing you have to go on is some ridiculous trust you've placed in some guy you've never met and the word of said guy you've never met. For all you and I know he could be as corrupt as Gamespot. He attracts people with bile and has the freedom to occasionally remark on points he enjoys, as such he has more than enough freedom to take the money and never get caught out, no?

You have no bloody idea if "Yahtzee delivers that", and nor do I. Nor do I have any evidence or idea that he does not. The point is that the possibility exists and thus:
He is not reliable.

Think about it like this: Yahtzee you're not sure whether or not is "dirty", almost every other game magazine and website, you KNOW they are. Besides, have you listened to his reviews...? Or just trolling because you're bored? "Yes Yahtzee? This is Blizzard's CEO... We'd like to pay you a large sum to not trash our game as badly...."-abbawha?

I have actually played a few of the games he reviewed, and he was spot on. I actually listen to what he says and think whether it makes sense or not based on personal experience... I know it sounds complicated, but try to...

I'd ask if you bothered to read the rest of my post, but clearly you didn't, so here ya go:

Yeah, all opinions are subjective. We know. Want a cake? But here's the catch: a review should never be the deciding factor in you buying a game or not just because of the reviewer gave it a certain score or thumbs up/down. A review should let you know what someone else liked and disliked in the game and why, so you can have a better idea of whether or not your opinion might be similar.

When a reviewer says "this game is a 9.7/10! GO BUY IT!" it means NOTHING. It's merely an indicator of a poor review. When a review says "The combat in this Final Fantasy game was bad because it was like all other FF games!" it tells you something: "Do you like FF combat in previous editions? Yes? Then this should be good. No? Then you probably won't like this one either."

There ya go.

I didn't feel the need to respond to the rest of your post. Your second paragraph was stating exactly what I stated with a tad more explanation added to it. Your third was just talking about quality of reviews. Neither said anything about Yahtzee's reliability or trustworthiness which is what I'm calling into question here.

Want a reason why people would pay Yahtzee to give good reviews? Look no further than the Escapist News [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.77354]. 7400% increase in sales for painkiller after his positive review. Are you trying to honestly tell me that a games publisher won't see that and say "Hang on a sec, I think we might have something here..."

You say "You played some of the games he reviewed and he was spot on." But, not to retread an argument, that's your opinion. I played some of the games he reviewed and found him to be wrong, I disagreed with him. Others I did agree on. That's just the way things go. He's not "Spot on", you just agree with him. There's an incredibly large difference when we're talking about critiquing a game.

 

[WTEricson]

As I look at the Need for Speed backdrop on this website, or the Mirror's edge backdrop on Gametrailers.... I find it humorous to think that any site making money from the developers parent company doesn't whore their scores upm for cash.

I find Gametrailers is great to get enough info on a game (the facts) to make my own educated assumption if a game is worth my money based on it filling my tastes. Do I trust their reveiws.... as much as the consumer should trust Wii to release an adult game....

Truthfully ZP is the only "critic" ATM that can change my mind on a game... but he doesn't score said games. Basicly he says to me... your over 30 and like games.... these are reasons to try this one, or these are humorous things about this one you shouldn't spend a dime on.... do I need a score to tell me how good or bad a game is.... NOOOOOOOOOOOOO. All I need is someone with a like minded opinion telling me if I should try it. Maybe that's just my simple mind though.

 

[Caliostro]

I didn't feel the need to respond to the rest of your post. Your second paragraph was stating exactly what I stated with a tad more explanation added to it. Your third was just talking about quality of reviews. Neither said anything about Yahtzee's reliability or trustworthiness which is what I'm calling into question here.

Erm. No. What you said was "Don't trust nobody or anything and specially not yahtzee". Not quite what I said.

Want a reason why people would pay Yahtzee to give good reviews? Look no further than the Escapist News [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.77354]. 7400% increase in sales for painkiller after his positive review. Are you trying to honestly tell me that a games publisher won't see that and say "Hang on a sec, I think we might have something here..."

You say "You played some of the games he reviewed and he was spot on." But, not to retread an argument, that's your opinion. I played some of the games he reviewed and found him to be wrong, I disagreed with him. Others I did agree on. That's just the way things go. He's not "Spot on", you just agree with him. There's an incredibly large difference when we're talking about critiquing a game.

Ok, let me be a bit more specific.

There are opinions [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion], and there are facts [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact]. You have to filter out his opinions and keep in mind the facts.

For example: If Yahtzee says "I think EVE online isn't fun", it's an opinion. However, when he said "the interface could only be any less intuitive if it was at the bottom of a fucking well" it's a fact! One wrapped in an hyperbole, but a fact nonetheless. You may think the game is good regardless or you may think that it's a piece of shit, but nobody can deny the interface is unintuitive. It's easily verified by turning on the game.

Was portal good? Questionable. Was portal original? Undoubtedly. Was Portal short? Equally undoubtedly.

And this is what Yahtzee does: "(A) was like this, (B) was like this, I enjoyed (A), however (B) become a nuisance and (C) was just terrible as it did this."

The fact that I agree that opinion not based on anything is worthless is why I despise numerical reviews. They're based on a randomized variable.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

You trust Yahtzee to give "reliable" criticism? You sir are a fool.

I agree with the OP.

Considering that Yahtzee seems to compare games by the same standards that I do (ie, critical of tired game cliches, logical flaws, and archaic design conventions) I find his opinion very reliable.

I feel that reliability is something that each reader should decide for themselves as I probably wouldn't find your opinion on games very reliable in comparison.

 

[Amnestic]

I didn't feel the need to respond to the rest of your post. Your second paragraph was stating exactly what I stated with a tad more explanation added to it. Your third was just talking about quality of reviews. Neither said anything about Yahtzee's reliability or trustworthiness which is what I'm calling into question here.

Erm. No. What you said was "Don't trust nobody or anything and specially not yahtzee". Not quite what I said.

Want a reason why people would pay Yahtzee to give good reviews? Look no further than the Escapist News [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.77354]. 7400% increase in sales for painkiller after his positive review. Are you trying to honestly tell me that a games publisher won't see that and say "Hang on a sec, I think we might have something here..."

You say "You played some of the games he reviewed and he was spot on." But, not to retread an argument, that's your opinion. I played some of the games he reviewed and found him to be wrong, I disagreed with him. Others I did agree on. That's just the way things go. He's not "Spot on", you just agree with him. There's an incredibly large difference when we're talking about critiquing a game.

Ok, let me be a bit more specific.

There are opinions [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion], and there's facts [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact]. You have to filter out his opinions and keep in mind the facts.

For example: If Yahtzee says "I think EVE online isn't fun", it's an opinion. However, when he said "the interface could only be any less intuitive if it was at the bottom of a fucking well" it's a fact! One wrapped in an hyperbole, but a fact nonetheless. You may think the game is good regardless or you may think that it's a piece of shit, but nobody can deny the interface is unintuitive. It's easily verified by turning on the game.

Was portal good? Questionable. Was portal original? Undoubtedly. Was Portal short? Equally undoubtedly.

And this is what Yahtzee does: "(A) was like this, (B) was like this, I enjoyed (A), however (B) become a nuisance and (C) was just terrible as it did this."

The fact that I agree that opinion not based on anything is worthless is why I despise numerical reviews. They're based on a randomized variable.

So you're basing Yahtzee's reliability on spouting facts that every single other reviewer could tell you? That's hardly a good point to make considering you already made a point about how corrupt the other reviewers "have to be nice, and politically correct more often than not." However the point you made there was that they're nice, that doesn't mean they omit facts.

You can state as much as you want about Yahtzee stating facts as "telling it like it is", however you've done nothing to convince me he is any more reliable than any other reviewer out there which is the real question. Is he a 'better' critic than others? Perhaps, certainly more amusing and certainly someone who I listen to once a week. He is not, however, more or less reliable than any other critic or reviewer actually. You can bang on about anything else to the ends of the Earth but, to take your point and twist it around. That is fact. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact]