Which games journalists are still trustworthy apart from Yahtzee

[Amnestic]

When he did both the review and Mailbag Showdown I hadn't even played the game because it hadn't come out in the EU.

So do I trust you or do I trust Yahtzee who says in the beginning that he got an import copy of the game thanks to the charity of GAME TRAIDERS ROBINA?

You trust neither of us. Yahtzee hated SSBB, I quite enjoyed it when it finally came out about 3-4 months after the US release. Whatever Yahtzee and I thought (putting myself next to him in the same sentence seems terribly strange), it probably didn't have a great impact on your game experience on the whole. So why should it matter?

Well, because, you know, you've been just throwing around baseless hatred and wild-eyed accusations, and you seem to having a lot of fun doing it. I just figured maybe pointing it out would give you a second target to fling at, and maybe that'd let you have even more fun.

I've not made a single accusation against Yahtzee's character, if I have I fear I may have misspoken. All I've done is highlight possibilities. Personally I don't think Yahtzee would take bribes from game companies to change his critique of a game, I don't think he's that kind of guy , but nevertheless the possibility remains despite what I think and I have the good sense to look past my personal view to other things. The only thing I've said of Yahtzee is that he's human and he's as trustworthy as every other reviewer out there. Take that as you will, but he's no more or less than that.

Well, okay, he is admittedly funnier than most other reviewers I'll give you that, but nevertheless the serious point remains that the possibility will always exist and that will never go away.

I don't hate Yahtzee, I think he's probably a pretty cool guy and should I ever meet him (not likely) I'd hope that we'd get along despite his supposéd hatred of the human race. Again, all I've done is call into question people's own bias to hold him as infallible and highlight that he's as human as the rest of us and thus, could fall victim to greed, as well as pointing out that game companies have a good reason to try to corrupt him.

 

[Amnestic]

Oh, crap. I see. No. One of my characteristic misreads. Never mind me. Sorry about that.

No worries, probably helped to clarify it into a shorter post rather than numerous posts over the last 3 pages anyway.

 

[GenHellspawn]

Yahtzee? The man that said a 3 hour long puzzle game with no multiplayer can be judged the height of gaming? The one who's never played the first two Fallouts before reviewing #3 (okay, that was kinda unnessecary, but come on)?

I think you lost me on how he was trustworthy.

So a game has to have multiplayer in order to be worthwhile?

Well, Max Payne had no multiplayer, and it was great. My point was, if your singleplayer is only going to be 3 hours long with nothing interesting to do besides listening to some text-to-speech voice (which admittedly had some rather funny dialogue), than you should at least have limited multiplayer. In fact, multiplayer in Portal would've actually made it quite good in my opinion, but aside from the ridiculously hard player-made levels, there's not much to do after you've beat the game.

 

[Not Good]

I like Game Informer, I don't know about anyone else here on the Escapist but I like their reviews.

I just got the newest issue with Halo 3 Recon for the cover story, and it's a pretty good magazine.

Some of their jokes are kind of lame though.

You, my friend, have it backwerds. Game Informer is the only Game magazine that is full of amusing jokes. All others have jokes that come off as bland and awkward.

Sorry about that, I probably should've been more clear with my statement.

But yeah, you're right, after looking through some of the previous issues I had remembered how funny some of their jokes were. But what I really meant about the lame jokes is when they sometimes try too hard and the jokes come off as, like you said, bland and awkward.

But don't get me wrong, I love GI, I think things like their Game Infarcer and Sacred Cow Barbecue segments are some of the funniest things I've ever read in any magazine. The only time I ever laughed at any other video game magazine's jokes was when I read Seanbaby's "Rest of the crap" segment in EGM, and even then, it felt a little forced.

Well it's not like every joke will be a winner. GI's ratio of funny/unfunny is quite high.

 

[CmdrGoob]

I agree with the OP, Yahtzee is a pretty trustworthy reviewer. He is excellent at picking up notable flaws and making pointed criticisms of overhyped games when most other reviewers will give them 9.god scores like giving out candy and will gloss over any flaws.

For example, look at GTA4, metascore 98. Anyone think that with that metascore the range of opinions we heard from the reviewers matched well with the range of opinions from gamers when so many people found it to be a little tedious and dull?

I find many hyped AAA releases deserved much more criticism that most game reviewers ever give them, and Yahtzee is good because he isn't afraid to be an exception.

 

[SteveDave]

I trust the people at GameInformer but not the ones at IGN.

 

[Aginor27]

Gametrailers has been pretty reliable as of late.

 

[Space Spoons]

I trust most of the guys over at 1Up, though that's starting to change. I get the feeling their site and EGM are starting to lean a bit.

Dan Hsu, though, I still trust. Even a passing glance at his blog would reveal that he does what he does out of passion, not for the money.

 

[ADDLibrarian]

At the moment Yahtzee is the only games journalist who I trust about anything. Please enlighten me about other games journalists who deliver reliable criticism.

I am a Yahtzee fan myself, but can recommend Adam Sessler from X-play. Although I no longer watch the show itself (it just stopped being funny) I do watch the occasional review online and I LOVE "Sessler's Soapbox".

http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/tag/172/Sesslers_Soapbox.html
http://www.g4tv.com/xplay/reviews/index.html

 

[ADDLibrarian]

I play the game it's called not being a sheep.

It's not about "not playing the game"...it's about hearing educated opinions about what others have to say about it before paying full price for something that you may or may not get some enjoyment out of. It's called "consumer research", not "being a sheep".

 

[qbert4ever]

The only reviews you can "trust" are the ones that come from people who seem to like or dislike the same things as you. I read OXM because more often then not I agree with the scores they give to games.

Bottom line, find someone who you agree with, and you will have your trustworthy journalist.

 

[Uncompetative]

A couple of people have mentioned metacritic and gamerankings as trustworthy but I often find them way off base (for example the LoZ: OoT score). If the majority of game reviews are biased puff pieces then the aggregate scores are clearly going to reflect this. Also I tend to distrust 'group think'.

This blog doesn't do reviews but it's excellent for critical analysis.
http://magicalwasteland.com/

Thanks for the link, I like the way this site sums up with PROs and CONs:

http://www.teletext.co.uk/gamecentral/default.aspx

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

No, that means he's agreeable to you. Not reliable. Reliable to me means that he'll give you his honest opinion on a game and that you can trust that what he says is what he truly believes. In that respect he is no more reliable than any other reviewer out there.

So your entire issue here is that the original poster missused the word "reliable".

Christ what a waste of time. You understood what he meant, this is just silly psuedo intellectual trolling.

 

[notyouraveragejoe]

I tend to need a few sources before I go out and buy a game. Professionally I google and check the first five. If they have similar views then I believe that is what the game is like. However if they differ widely then I check with people I know who have played it. My buying motto is try before you buy since I think the best opinion is your own. Failing that it's always a good idea with your friends since you generally have a similar taste.

 

[SimuLord]

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?

Speaking as an Escapist Guest Reviewer, I can say that a certain bias shows up insofar as I decide to pitch a game to the site based on which ones I've played enough to be able to review in a way that's cohesive and intelligently written. Since I, rather than the editors, am making that choice I'm naturally going to be drawn to games that I want to spend enough time playing to be able to review correctly---my time is valuable and if I'm selling it in exchange for just a byline (as valuable as bylines are, you can't pay rent with them), I don't want to feel like my time was wasted.

I think this is why Escapist Guest Reviews generally run toward the positive "buy it" recommendations---they're evangelism, not journalism.