Reviews are important as it can help decide whether I part with some of my money.Do I buy the game at release or do I wait for the price to drop.
.
I don't get this though, why let someone make your mind up for you ? If we all followed what reviewers said then we would all be playing the same games.
I don't get this though, why let someone make your mind up for you ? If we all followed what reviewers said then we would all be playing the same games.
Depends on the game tho.
If it's a game I'm looking forward to then I'll buy it, without needing reviews, like Uncharted. Likewise no amount of amazing reviews will get me to buy Call of Duty. But there's some games in the middle that I just don't know if it's worth the money or time so I'll read some review to see what the reviewers have to say.
Of course this method doesn't always work. Everyone was gushing about Fallout 4, so I bought it and didn't like it. Just couldn't get on with it.
If it's a game I'm looking forward to then I'll buy it, without needing reviews, like Uncharted. Likewise no amount of amazing reviews will get me to buy Call of Duty. But there's some games in the middle that I just don't know if it's worth the money or time so I'll read some review to see what the reviewers have to say.
Of course this method doesn't always work. Everyone was gushing about Fallout 4, so I bought it and didn't like it. Just couldn't get on with it.
But by doing that you risk being influenced by biased opinions. I would rather buy a game without knowing anything about it than letting a reviewer make my mind up for me.
The best thing to do is check out a few videos of the game. The only thing reviews are good for is pointing out if there are glitches, but they rarely point those things out.
But by doing that you risk being influenced by biased opinions. I would rather buy a game without knowing anything about it than letting a reviewer make my mind up for me.
The best thing to do is check out a few videos of the game. The only thing reviews are good for is pointing out if there are glitches, but they rarely point those things out.
Games aren't cheap though so just buying a game you know nothing about can be a costly mistake. Reviews don't need to taken as gospel, but there's nothing wrong with reading a few just to get a feeling for a game you're not sure about. It could a new IP or a game from a new, unproven developer or a game with a long, convoluted development history, not every game is a must buy no brainer like UC4.
It depends if the review/reviewer in question is just going the opposite way just to gain hits or attention, those are the types that should get petitioned.
The biggest problem I have with modern reviews is they seem to focus too much on factors like content and story, rather than if games are actually fun to play.
I'd rather have a game that offers 10 hours of fun than one that requires you to trudge through 40 hours of monotony.
Oh ffs, before I clicked the link I thought "Oh boy yet another group of people wanting a review discredited" but this is SO much worse:
Firstly, IGN's review of Doom was perfectly fine in terms of content, it wasn't at all like The Washington Post's Uncharted 4 review which was just a complete mess.
But more importantly, they're trying to get IGN discredited across the board!! Arguably the biggest name in multimedia coverage and they're trying to get them discredited entirely just because Doom received a lower score than they desired?! Are they joking with this nonsense?!
First the AVGN Ghostbusters backlash and now this, truly sad times we seem to be living in nowadays where as soon as someone goes against the general consensus that opinion will then be censored and buried like it never even happened, it's disgraceful stuff.
i find myself less and less using reviews. if i have an interest in the game to begin with because im interested in the the setting or subject matter. i will play doom what ever the review gave it. other ones ive been put off games before by the reviews and after trying it have liked them. eg latest example only just got alien isolation as i like survival horror games and the alien films. it got a 5.9 on IGN i think its great top notch survival horror
i find myself less and less using reviews. if i have an interest in the game to begin with because im interested in the the setting or subject matter. i will play doom what ever the review gave it. other ones ive been put off games before by the reviews and after trying it have liked them. eg latest example only just got alien isolation as i like survival horror games and the alien films. it got a 5.9 on IGN i think its great top notch survival horror
Yeah of all the reviews IGN have ever published that's the one I take most umbrage with, it was ridiculously off the mark, since then I haven't paid attention to a single review Ryan McAffrey or Mitch Dyer have done as I tend to find both of them are almost always way off the mark when it comes to reviews, and McAffrey in particular frequently lets his bias towards Xbox shine through in his work, which I don't tend to find very professional at all.
McAffrey in particular frequently lets his bias towards Xbox shine through in his work, which I don't tend to find very professional at all.
totally agree.
there are two people i really cant stand at IGN, mcaffrey and max scoville and they both host podcasts unlocked and beyond. dont the the people in charge at IGN realize how annoying both of them are
anyway my dislike of him aside better to try out a game rather than let a review put you off totally
The biggest problem I have with modern reviews is they seem to focus too much on factors like content and story, rather than if games are actually fun to play.
I'm sorry but this represents the problem - you regard the gameplay as more important but other people would say the story and content is equally important and separates a great game from a good one game. That is the thing with a review - it's an opinion. An opinion that is based on our own personal tastes and expectations so if a reviewer has issue with the story and you don't think a story should even be regarded then ignore that aspect of the review and move on. It should not bother you unless you are someone who is into story and characters.
And of course the story is more highlighted than that in previous years - the gaming medium has changed now i.e. stories and characters are more sophisticated and becoming more like movies. Reviewers place importance on story because the developers do. To ignore it would be awkward.
The Last of Us is a game that practically falls apart when you remove the story/characters because it's as basic as a linear third person post apocalypse survival game can get.
I'm sorry but this represents the problem - you regard the gameplay as more important but other people would say the story and content is equally important and separates a great game from a good one game. That is the thing with a review - it's an opinion. An opinion that is based on our own personal tastes and expectations so if a reviewer has issue with the story and you don't think a story should even be regarded then ignore that aspect of the review and move on. It should not bother you unless you are someone who is into story and characters.
And of course the story is more highlighted than that in previous years - the gaming medium has changed now i.e. stories and characters are more sophisticated and becoming more like movies. Reviewers place importance on story because the developers do. To ignore it would be awkward.
The Last of Us is a game that practically falls apart when you remove the story/characters because it's as basic as a linear third person post apocalypse survival game can get.
Indeed, The Last of Us is nothing without it's story, and yet I'm still adamant it's one of the most memorable, revolutionary games I've EVER played, I would have it firmly in my top 10 of all time, maybe even top 5, because it was just so great in almost every way even if the gameplay left a bit to be desired.
That having been said I can kinda see what fastest finger is getting at, in that even if a game is incredibly fun to play, reviewers will go about putting the focus on some other element other than gameplay, such as framerate, graphics in general or - like he said - the story.
I mean it really is a case by case thing where each game has a different area that should be focused on, I mean Rocket League for example, the focus should obviously be on the gameplay above all else, where as with Uncharted and The Last of Us then obviously the story should be front and centre.
I'm sorry but this represents the problem - you regard the gameplay as more important but other people would say the story and content is equally important and separates a great game from a good one game. That is the thing with a review - it's an opinion. An opinion that is based on our own personal tastes and expectations so if a reviewer has issue with the story and you don't think a story should even be regarded then ignore that aspect of the review and move on. It should not bother you unless you are someone who is into story and characters.
And of course the story is more highlighted than that in previous years - the gaming medium has changed now i.e. stories and characters are more sophisticated and becoming more like movies. Reviewers place importance on story because the developers do. To ignore it would be awkward.
The Last of Us is a game that practically falls apart when you remove the story/characters because it's as basic as a linear third person post apocalypse survival game can get.
That having been said I can kinda see what fastest finger is getting at, in that even if a game is incredibly fun to play, reviewers will go about putting the focus on some other element other than gameplay, such as framerate, graphics in general or - like he said - the story.
No, they don't. The Order is a game that was panned because of its lacklustre gameplay despite gorgeous graphics.
Also, story and gameplay is intricately woven in with one another. Take Assassin's Creed 2 which did this masterfully. It's hard to separate the two when so much of enjoying the game play depends on how invested you are in the story.
You said they focus too much on factors like story "rather than whether or not the game is fun to play" when we've already established that what makes a game "fun to play" is subjective based on what you personally look for in a game and the type of game it is. A review is an opinion given by human beings with personal preferences so they are going to vary and focus on the factors that are important to them.
It's nothing new, still remember the reaction to gamespot giving Zelda Twilight Princess an 8.8: BEFORE the game was even released. Turns out they were being really generous.
review score have now become a thing. anything below 8 is regarded rubbish and it is the reviewers fault as they have been over generous with certain games and not so with others. Scores have become meaningless. Most reviewers gave Doom at least an 8. IGN gave it 7.1 (what does the .1 even mean?). I get why people get annoyed when a great game gets below an 8, its silly to complain about anything at the 9 mark though. below 8 can damage a games reputation in this climate. sensible people see it for what it is but the masses will look at nothing unless its at least the magic 8 or above. Some night give a valid 7 which makes sense but then they will undo that honest work but giving a rubbish title a 9.
i think whats crazy is alot of devlepoers get a maasive bonus based on metacrtic score. obsidian famously was due a massive bonus if fallout new vegas got an 85 or over and its average is 84
Mainly the above for me, Total War, War Hammer, I was getting this whatever the reviews, however, reviewers had the game before release and the subsequent critique was favourable.
BF4, was another I purchased the following weekend after release. They are the only two full price purchased games without any reviews, that were good experiences.
Battlefront, what a beautiful looking Turkey of game, impulse on the day purchase of release, it deserves the panning by critics. Waste of money for me!
One of my favorite places for game reviews is Metro they are generally well written and little less generous with the review scores than other Web sites.
Yes metro has always been one of my favorites. You used to get people on this very forum a few years ago crying about their reviews too, mostly about dave jenkins when he didnt fawn over hyped ps3 games.
I also loved gametrailers reviews. Its good to see the staff from there back reviewing games
Yes metro has always been one of my favorites. You used to get people on this very forum a few years ago crying about their reviews too, mostly about dave jenkins when he didnt fawn over hyped ps3 games.
I also loved gametrailers reviews. Its good to see the staff from there back reviewing games
Are the one's on Metro still the same one's that used to be on ITV Teletext ? They were called GameCentral, i used to read the updates every single day on teletext. I miss those days.
Comments
I don't get this though, why let someone make your mind up for you ? If we all followed what reviewers said then we would all be playing the same games.
Depends on the game tho.
If it's a game I'm looking forward to then I'll buy it, without needing reviews, like Uncharted. Likewise no amount of amazing reviews will get me to buy Call of Duty. But there's some games in the middle that I just don't know if it's worth the money or time so I'll read some review to see what the reviewers have to say.
Of course this method doesn't always work. Everyone was gushing about Fallout 4, so I bought it and didn't like it. Just couldn't get on with it.
But by doing that you risk being influenced by biased opinions. I would rather buy a game without knowing anything about it than letting a reviewer make my mind up for me.
The best thing to do is check out a few videos of the game. The only thing reviews are good for is pointing out if there are glitches, but they rarely point those things out.
Games aren't cheap though so just buying a game you know nothing about can be a costly mistake. Reviews don't need to taken as gospel, but there's nothing wrong with reading a few just to get a feeling for a game you're not sure about. It could a new IP or a game from a new, unproven developer or a game with a long, convoluted development history, not every game is a must buy no brainer like UC4.
I'd rather have a game that offers 10 hours of fun than one that requires you to trudge through 40 hours of monotony.
Pathetic, it really is.
And 7.1 isn't exactly a terrible score anyway.
Oh ffs, before I clicked the link I thought "Oh boy yet another group of people wanting a review discredited" but this is SO much worse:
Firstly, IGN's review of Doom was perfectly fine in terms of content, it wasn't at all like The Washington Post's Uncharted 4 review which was just a complete mess.
But more importantly, they're trying to get IGN discredited across the board!! Arguably the biggest name in multimedia coverage and they're trying to get them discredited entirely just because Doom received a lower score than they desired?! Are they joking with this nonsense?!
First the AVGN Ghostbusters backlash and now this, truly sad times we seem to be living in nowadays where as soon as someone goes against the general consensus that opinion will then be censored and buried like it never even happened, it's disgraceful stuff.
totally agree.
there are two people i really cant stand at IGN, mcaffrey and max scoville and they both host podcasts unlocked and beyond. dont the the people in charge at IGN realize how annoying both of them are
anyway my dislike of him aside better to try out a game rather than let a review put you off totally
I'm sorry but this represents the problem - you regard the gameplay as more important but other people would say the story and content is equally important and separates a great game from a good one game. That is the thing with a review - it's an opinion. An opinion that is based on our own personal tastes and expectations so if a reviewer has issue with the story and you don't think a story should even be regarded then ignore that aspect of the review and move on. It should not bother you unless you are someone who is into story and characters.
And of course the story is more highlighted than that in previous years - the gaming medium has changed now i.e. stories and characters are more sophisticated and becoming more like movies. Reviewers place importance on story because the developers do. To ignore it would be awkward.
The Last of Us is a game that practically falls apart when you remove the story/characters because it's as basic as a linear third person post apocalypse survival game can get.
Indeed, The Last of Us is nothing without it's story, and yet I'm still adamant it's one of the most memorable, revolutionary games I've EVER played, I would have it firmly in my top 10 of all time, maybe even top 5, because it was just so great in almost every way even if the gameplay left a bit to be desired.
That having been said I can kinda see what fastest finger is getting at, in that even if a game is incredibly fun to play, reviewers will go about putting the focus on some other element other than gameplay, such as framerate, graphics in general or - like he said - the story.
I mean it really is a case by case thing where each game has a different area that should be focused on, I mean Rocket League for example, the focus should obviously be on the gameplay above all else, where as with Uncharted and The Last of Us then obviously the story should be front and centre.
I never said that.
No, they don't. The Order is a game that was panned because of its lacklustre gameplay despite gorgeous graphics.
Also, story and gameplay is intricately woven in with one another. Take Assassin's Creed 2 which did this masterfully. It's hard to separate the two when so much of enjoying the game play depends on how invested you are in the story.
You said they focus too much on factors like story "rather than whether or not the game is fun to play" when we've already established that what makes a game "fun to play" is subjective based on what you personally look for in a game and the type of game it is. A review is an opinion given by human beings with personal preferences so they are going to vary and focus on the factors that are important to them.
Mainly the above for me, Total War, War Hammer, I was getting this whatever the reviews, however, reviewers had the game before release and the subsequent critique was favourable.
BF4, was another I purchased the following weekend after release. They are the only two full price purchased games without any reviews, that were good experiences.
Battlefront, what a beautiful looking Turkey of game, impulse on the day purchase of release, it deserves the panning by critics. Waste of money for me!
Yes metro has always been one of my favorites. You used to get people on this very forum a few years ago crying about their reviews too, mostly about dave jenkins when he didnt fawn over hyped ps3 games.
I also loved gametrailers reviews. Its good to see the staff from there back reviewing games
Are the one's on Metro still the same one's that used to be on ITV Teletext ? They were called GameCentral, i used to read the updates every single day on teletext. I miss those days.