The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Reputable critic sites
Pox
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
After reading the latest "preview/impressions" on IGN which began with the cookie cutter "I'm a huge fan of <game preceeding the one being previewed> and when I heard that the developers were different, I was pretty unexcited about it. But, then I played <game being previewed> and now I'm excited again!" I was getting pretty tired of IGN in general. Just the way they write about things, always dodging issues while briefly acknowledging it etc. etc.
I'm wondering what review sites (if any) you guys go to? What sites you're really keen on, even trust some reviewers/reviews/previews/impressions?
Personally, for me, it'd be GiantBomb.com. If there's a negative somewhere they're not afraid to bring it out into the spotlight, mention it, or say if they were unimpressed/let down by a preview/impression. I've found Joystiq to be pretty similar when it comes to the rare time they review things. But, besides the two mentioned... is there really anything else out there that hasn't overcorporitizied itself into being wholly unreputable and cookie cutter PR site dressed up as a critique site?
I'm wondering what review sites (if any) you guys go to? What sites you're really keen on, even trust some reviewers/reviews/previews/impressions?
Personally, for me, it'd be GiantBomb.com. If there's a negative somewhere they're not afraid to bring it out into the spotlight, mention it, or say if they were unimpressed/let down by a preview/impression. I've found Joystiq to be pretty similar when it comes to the rare time they review things. But, besides the two mentioned... is there really anything else out there that hasn't overcorporitizied itself into being wholly unreputable and cookie cutter PR site dressed up as a critique site?
Pox on
0
Posts
They give a game summary, they list what they thought were the best and the worst parts of the game, and give a little overall review paragraph at the end. They also list exactly what system they played it on, what aspects of the game they played, and for how long.
Rockpapershotgun are excellent, but pc-only.
I find that works best.
Meh, PAers totally overhype things. It's not as bad as some places, but it is significant.
You generally have people pointing out game flaws very quickly, however.
I suppose that is true. Our opinions become more even-handed over time.
'Even-handed'? What are you? Some kind of fanboy apologist?
Do not engage the Watermelons.
I, uh, need to see this... for myself. For ... investigative purposes.
Some chick on Youtube called UltraNeko, I haven't check it out in a while.
Thanks for this. I pretty much only used the Metacritic PC section before, but this site seems to be much better.
I have to say that this is the only forum where someone can bring up nearly any obscure or underrated game system (for example, the recent Atari Jaguar thread) and immediately be followed by a good number of people covering it with praise. Looking at general PAer opinions, half the consoles in existence could very well have been among the best consoles ever made.
Otherwise, I mostly follow podcasts. Gamers With Jobs is excellent, and the 1UP alums have some good stuff -- Rebel FM, A Life Well Wasted, and The Geekbox.
In general though i usually go with gamerankings and metacritic to get on overall feel of the game. Ever since Next Generation died, ive kinda lost my way in terms of publications.
For finding completely new games, 75% of my purchases come from reading gamer opinions on forums. The other 25% comes from recommendations of my friends list. I tend to trust Gabe and Tycho as well, but they so rarely talk about genres I'm interested in they've not once convinced me to buy a game.
I read as many reviews that I possibly can for any given game.
Why?
Because I want a variety of opinions and perspectives. I don't really generally consider one person's perspective to be enough, really.
Secondly, a lot of times I can read a review and determine if the reviewer knows what the hell he's talking about or not. Reading multiple ones allows me to find reviews on games that are actually meaningful.
Really, the important thing in reading reviews is to learn about what the game is and what it does and how it plays. I care a lot less about whether the reviewer thought aspects of the game were good or "worth your purchase" or not. What I want to obtain from a review is to get an idea of what the game is.
I've found that the best way to do that is to read many reviews, and watch gameplay videos.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Thats basically what I do for any game I consider buying.
Oh please.
Someone happens across a Jaguar, and wants suggestions of what few games are there that actually manage to be good for it. There are a few. People suggested them. That's a far cry from someone making a thread just for the purpose of talking about how the Jaguar was the best console ever.
Nobody in the Jag thread said it was a good system or that it had many good games, or even many games at all.
Rather, this community is knowledgeable about what few good games actually are available, even for obscure or shortlived platforms, that we can give decent recommendations.
I consider that a better position than if someone happened across an old system, asked for recommendations, and then was spammed with responses like, "Hurf durf olol ur an idiot jaguaar sux lol every1 knos that its got zero good gaems sucker". When there are, in fact a bare few that are actually fun.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Seriously, this website gets better and better every week.
Threads like that tend to get locked in about 5 minutes anyways.
I loved their Noby Noby Boy video. If there is one prime example of what Giant Bomb does that other gaming sites don't, that's it.
But if I'm just curious if a game's good or not, I check RPS, Ars Technica or Eurogamer. Tom Chick also writes well. And Gametrailers' reviews are pretty good at showcasing the game in motion, more so than other video reviews.
1up still has great content -- especially Jeremy Parish.
Case in point, their review for Sonic's Ultimate Genesis Collection was three stars out of five. However, looking over the review, the main point of contention is that "the audio in Space Harrier is fucked up". Okay, so 1/49 of the game is messed up, care to comment much on the rest?
Gerstmann has always been a terrible reviewer though (not citing his 8.8 of Zelda, which is justifiable).
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire,
Kieron Gillen, the guy who wrote that, is one of the four pillars of Rock, Paper, Shotgun and all the other writers are as good as him. You should check it out.
One thing I have found is that with the exception of dedicated communities like PA, people are idiots about media.
In other words, for metareview sites where you can see separate scores for professional reviews and user reviews, I tend to agree with the pros almost every time. I'm fairly sure this is because people who don't like games / movies / books, tend to just not finish them, and therefore not review them, where as critics don't usually have that option. Their editor says review, so they review. As a result, fan reviews wind up artificially high.
The overhyping is horribly bad when games are first released. Lots of posts proclaiming x game as the best thing ever, better than sex, etc. But for games that have been out for a while you get a more accurate picture.
Makes you wonder about the people hyping the games at release.