I don't understand people who want a technical fact sheet from a game review. Use analytical thought when reading a review to see how the reviewer's opinion fits with your own tastes. Gaf has got to be one of the worst places to look for "objective" purchasing advice. It's like an echo chamber of overreactions, with the constant white noise of the bandwagon. At least journalists will actually play a game before writing their opinion.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Why you don't need game reviews in your life
- Thread starter FeiRR
- Start date
CaptainGyro
Banned
I know what I like and I can say that it's for damn sure that I can't find all of that in just a few seconds of watching a video
There are undoubtedly good reasons to ignore reviews, but those in the OP are universally terrible reasons.
1) If I wanted a fact sheet, I would just read the publisher's press release.
2) Being more skilled at games doesn't make someone a better reviewer.
3) Everyone has an opinion, but a good professional writer can explain the "how" and the "why" of an opinion better than amateurs.
4) There's no such thing as an "objective" playthrough. People play differently. That's what makes games games. Not to mention that playthrough videos are filled with subjective commentary.
5) Buying games in order to form opinions is not an option for most people. It's also wasteful and silly.
1) If I wanted a fact sheet, I would just read the publisher's press release.
2) Being more skilled at games doesn't make someone a better reviewer.
3) Everyone has an opinion, but a good professional writer can explain the "how" and the "why" of an opinion better than amateurs.
4) There's no such thing as an "objective" playthrough. People play differently. That's what makes games games. Not to mention that playthrough videos are filled with subjective commentary.
5) Buying games in order to form opinions is not an option for most people. It's also wasteful and silly.
It's probably just down to personal opinion. If a review mentions there is some problem that you find important - framerate drops, so-so writing, etc... - then you'd think the score should be low. If the writer doesn't find that issue as important, they wouldn't take as much off the score. So now the score is accurate for them, but 'contradicts' for you.
I feel the reason for this is everyone takes reviews too seriously and think that if they agree with it than reviews are good, but once it says something negative about a game they were hyped for they start to hate reviews.
Reviews are supposed to be supplemental, something that gives you info from both the positive and negative so you can better understand whether you are interested in a game or not, and whether it's worth taking the 60$ risk. It's silly to think I can just spend 60$ on a game to figure out whether I'm gonna like the game or not, I'm not rich enough to deal with the hype process that many seem to go through. Reviews and previews help me differeinate information by having multiple sources. When there are reviews, there isn't just 1 or 2 reviews, there are tons with tons of various opinions and information.
theusedversion
Member
Too bad for you.
Reviews are completely meaningless to me, or at least scores. I do have some trusted reviewers but even then I don't let them decide for me if a game they don't like looks good to me.theusedversion
Member
I'm surprised J. Schreier (sp?) hasn't turned up. He usually pops in whenever these threads show up.
That section is a really good point. A lot of us have as much or more time into this hobby than a lot of reviewers and have really narrowed down our genres/tastes.
This I don't really agree with. To me, the thing to do is find your favorite reviewers, the ones whose opinions you generally agree with and whose writing you enjoy. Then that handful of journalists doesn't become someone "I don't even know". You know them and have a reader/writer relationship with them. That's a lot of the enjoyment for me.
Juke Joint Jezebel
Member
I only read reviews for technical information these days. Stuff like bugs at launch is stuff I need to know if I'm going to lay 40 smackers down on a new release, but even reviews aren't covering that shit these days, and they seem to skim over important technical details like that. The rest of the review is just an opinion piece I can happily skim over if I want. Totalbiscuit fills the gap for information about that on PC at least, with his quick looks and port reports.
Holy Order Sol
Member
I don't need reviews I just look for information. I want to have an idea of what's in the game and decide for myself whether or not that appeals to me, not hear your opinion about it. Why should that matter to me? You're nothing to me.
Paul_Str337
Member
I think Giant Bomb have the right idea with reviews. Find someone you know whose opinions you trust. I stopped reading platform specific magazine reviews back in the PS2 era because of the bias they had towards PS2 exclusives even if they weren't any good (Giving Tomb Raider Angel of Darkness a 9 out of 10). I've a few places I trust and know have similar opinions about games as I do and will read all their reviews for games I'm on the fence about.
TheSlySoul
Member
I mostly use reviews to see about games to pick up on sale. I do not listen to games I really want.
Forcing a score to my reviews is the worst part of writing. It feels quite subjective, because it's difficult to tell whether I should grade the game towards others in the genre, other games in the series, or just general accessibility. I try to take myself out of the situation and understand the game as a gamer that's never thought of playing the game before but it doesn't always work out. There are some games that I would love to go back and regrade after reflection.
CaptainGyro
Banned
okay
I agree, scores are pretty useless, and the scores only seem to be used as fan war fodder these days for those who don't like to even read reviews. I really wish more would adopt even Kotaku's Yes or No system.
DidntKnowJack
Member
Yes but you can usually filter the overly positive hyperbole with little effort.
If someone says "OMFG Game of the fucking forever!!", its probably a slight exaggeration.
I H8 Memes
Member
Nothing personal against game reviewers, but they are pretty much useless. Even the best review pales in comparison to the hundreds to thousands of opinions I can gather just here on Neogaf.
Also, since I'm not a sucker I don't preorder games. Since I don't preorder games I don't need an opinion before the game releases. I guess if I was a sucker that preordered games then in that situation I might need some kind of early review that only videogame journalists have access to.
Also, since I'm not a sucker I don't preorder games. Since I don't preorder games I don't need an opinion before the game releases. I guess if I was a sucker that preordered games then in that situation I might need some kind of early review that only videogame journalists have access to.
CaptainGyro
Banned
I really wish people would stop saying that people only use scores as confirmation bias or fanboy wars or whatver because the idea is a huge pile of bullshit
Then what else usually happens in review threads? Because alot of the review threads I've seen are pretty much that.
CaptainGyro
Banned
you know that there are countless numbers of other people in the world that don't go in review threads right?
adamantypants
Member
Gaming press has sort of been moving toward a personality based editor system. If you don't like it, it's sort of terrible for you. In the nineties, most reviews were sort of faceless paragraphs that were very unopinionated. Nowadays, you have to know the reviewers and know what they like.
For me, it works out. I'm fully aware of the types of personalities at Gamespot, IGN, and GiantBomb. I know who to look for and what opinions they have. Whatever they don't like I can usually figure out why. It's a lot like asking a friend their opinion on a game.
For me, it works out. I'm fully aware of the types of personalities at Gamespot, IGN, and GiantBomb. I know who to look for and what opinions they have. Whatever they don't like I can usually figure out why. It's a lot like asking a friend their opinion on a game.
IAmRandom31
Banned
Now with Live from Playstation ( or twitch or ustream ) and SharePlay there is even less reason to pay attention to reviews. If I want to see how a game looks, ill watch someone else play that is competent at playing the game or play it via SharePlay.
I'm the other way around. I never would have picked up Valiant Hearts (and soon to be buying This War of Mine) if it wasn't for reading for game reviews beforehand.
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
I don't know what to think.
I write reviews, even did it "professionally" for a time, but I hardly ever read them. Opinions rarely sell me on games.
I write reviews, even did it "professionally" for a time, but I hardly ever read them. Opinions rarely sell me on games.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
This does complement my post well!
Of course i have to read reviews. In the same way that i watch IMDB before movies i see Metacritic before buying a game. I don't have time to play more then 5-6 games a year so instead of playing them myself i watch reviews and pick the best ones according to what a previously wanted. I don't care if a game got 9.5 or 9.4 but i care if a game got 7.7 instead of 9.5.
neverknowsbest
Member
Agreed 100%. Game reviews suffer from the same problem as music reviews: enjoyment of a game is subjective enough that reviews can't tell you the only important thing about a game: is it fun? Apart from glaring technical or design flaws, game reviews never tell me anything I want to know.
I really don't understand why some people on this board hold game reviews and reviewers in such high regard. I think a lot of people need validation of their opinions.
Excellent topic.
For me, it comes down to whether or not I can trust the ability of reviewers to do their job correctly. Unfortunately, the answer to that leans more towards 'No' than 'Yes'. Take one look at the Metacritic pages of the broken games over the past year. If that doesn't tell you that these guys can't do their jobs correctly then nothing ever will.
For me, it comes down to whether or not I can trust the ability of reviewers to do their job correctly. Unfortunately, the answer to that leans more towards 'No' than 'Yes'. Take one look at the Metacritic pages of the broken games over the past year. If that doesn't tell you that these guys can't do their jobs correctly then nothing ever will.
StudioTan
Hold on, friend! I'd love to share with you some swell news about the Windows 8 Metro UI! Wait, where are you going?
If people started to ignore game reviews completely and just used forums and youtubers to figure out whether they should purchase a game or not then all you're doing is shifting the power from one set of people to another. Publishers will just put their marketing dollars into buying time on youtubers and flooding forums with viral marketers. These things already happen but it would just be worse.
Reviews are fine, youtubers are fine, forum opinions are fine. Just get the info you need from wherever and make your own decision. Learn to filter out the bullshit.
Reviews are fine, youtubers are fine, forum opinions are fine. Just get the info you need from wherever and make your own decision. Learn to filter out the bullshit.
LookAtMeGo
Member
A lot if games I like seem to review like shit anyway and if I was to purchase games based off of review scores I would have missed out on some of my favorite games.
Most mainstream game media is becoming all tabloidy and clickbaity. I will still read a review or watch some video reviews here and there just for entertainment but I don't let it sway my opinion of a game in the least.
This whole new "next gen" gaming checklist shit is so annoying as well. "It's not open world", "it doesnt do anything new". These expectations people have of what should be in games these days is ridiculous IMO. Like everything needs to innovate or something.
I just like to play games. I know what I like and am willing to try anything. I don't need somebody whos job it is to be critical of something tell me what I might enjoy about something. I'd rather find that out for myself.
Most mainstream game media is becoming all tabloidy and clickbaity. I will still read a review or watch some video reviews here and there just for entertainment but I don't let it sway my opinion of a game in the least.
This whole new "next gen" gaming checklist shit is so annoying as well. "It's not open world", "it doesnt do anything new". These expectations people have of what should be in games these days is ridiculous IMO. Like everything needs to innovate or something.
I just like to play games. I know what I like and am willing to try anything. I don't need somebody whos job it is to be critical of something tell me what I might enjoy about something. I'd rather find that out for myself.
Leafhopper
Banned
I agree with what you are saying but I was talking about contradictions made by the reviewer themselves in one review. For example "X is bad and should not be in the game" a paragraph or 2 later "X is great!"
This isn't common though.
Not to single you out, but this personifies my reservations over the whole premise of the OT.
It honestly reads like naive adolescent angst against "The Man". A phase most of us all go through to be sure, that is conversely left behind when we no longer need to stand out by being contrarian.
Professional reviewers aren't the bad guy. I imagine most are completely honest, genuine and do the best they can. You have to have some level of investment & passion for the subject to make a career of it as the wages are generally low and the job market unstable.
I can read a review and still think for myself. And some reviews I will completely disagree with (PC Gamer gave Farming Simulator 15 a 40% and it's my GOTY). But that doesn't mean the system is broken. It only means I need to go in with eyes wide open. No system is entirely perfect.
Throwing out the whole review establishment because of some real or perceived inconsistencies just strikes me as incredibility naive and juvenile. As I said, nothing personal to those who back the OT, just my take.
Melchiah
Member
It always makes me cringe, when I see a reviewer mention something like that, particularly the open world mantra. New experiences are of course welcome, but I mostly bought a new system for better visuals; same gameplay mechanics I've grown to love dressed in a better form. Truth be told, I can't think of any real innovations in gameplay, that would have been introduced after the PS1 days, apart from the online features, and I'm not really yearning for them either.
FriedConsole
Banned
Agreed. With all the resources now game reviews are archaic like music reviews became 15 years ago. Like poetry, the only people who appreciate written game reviews are people who want to write written game reviews.
Wowfunhappy
Member
I get it. Reviews aren't perfect, and we all have a game we love that reviewed badly.
But whenever you decide to ignore reviews, the marketers win. Because at the end of the day, that's what the choice isyou buy based on reviews, or you buy based on the game's marketing.
Y'know how we complain the game developers don't prioritize frame-rate or resolution? Isn't funny how those are the two things that don't really show up in Youtube videos? And just generally speaking, Youtube videos will always make the games with better graphics seem better, regardless of how they play.
And similarly, the reason there are so few new video game IP's is because people are much more likely to buy new entries in a series they've enjoyed before, than they to take a chance on something brand new. Unless they base their decisions on reviews.
But whenever you decide to ignore reviews, the marketers win. Because at the end of the day, that's what the choice isyou buy based on reviews, or you buy based on the game's marketing.
Y'know how we complain the game developers don't prioritize frame-rate or resolution? Isn't funny how those are the two things that don't really show up in Youtube videos? And just generally speaking, Youtube videos will always make the games with better graphics seem better, regardless of how they play.
And similarly, the reason there are so few new video game IP's is because people are much more likely to buy new entries in a series they've enjoyed before, than they to take a chance on something brand new. Unless they base their decisions on reviews.
Wait. Am I reading this right?
The only people who like poetry are aspiring poets? Yikes.
#Bukowski4LifeYo
Redundant.
CecilRousso
Member
Well, the more you know. I had no idea that I wanted to write game reviews.
fuzzyreactor
Banned
Reviews and metacritic do more harm than good for the industry
theprodigy
Member
well guess what, the people in those review threads exist too and they're the ones that keep reviews relevant
Wowfunhappy
Member
SneakyStephan
Banned
Hahahaha
You're funny OP
ChrisMahoney
Banned
I'd rather not waste money on bad games. There's only so much you can get from watching gameplay videos. I like reviews.