Who do you trust?

Vampyre611

Vampyre611

CAGiversary!
Feedback
1 (100%)
I was wondering who the majority of CAG's trust when it comes down to game reviews. i have noticed some magizines/games sites really seem like 'hype indicators' and aren't necessarily a good indicator of how good a game is. So, who do you trust?
 
I don't ever inheritantly "trust" video game reviewers as like you've said they're often hype machines. That being said, IGN is usually where I Go for a preliminary review, but if I want to do more extensive research I go to gamerankings. Once there, I usually pick out one review that says a game is good to find out what's good about it, and one review that says it's not as good to find out what's bad about it.
 
Well, I don't puch much weight on reviews; I rely more on the opinions of people on the boards.

But I do read a lot of reviews. I get Nintendo Power, GameInformer, Electronic Gaming Monthly, and Hardcore Gamer (and yes, I have gotten the majority of these either free or discounted anyways). I regularly go on Gamespot, IGN, and genre-specific sites (shmups.com or rpgfan.com).

I would say out of all of those sources, I trust Gamespot the most. They seem to write the most detailed, comprehensive reviews of games, without genre or system bias. After Gamespot, Hardcore Gamer is my second source, since they write solely toward the audience of hardcore gamers.

So when I want a game, I check the Gamespot review first, then if it hasn't already been reviewed in HCG, I might wait for the issue or check another site. If the scores kind of match (and are high enough for my standards), then I know the game was widely liked. If they are widely different, I'll check other sites and user opinions.
 
I don't think "trust" is the right word, we're talking about opinions so "agree with" makes more sense. I generally agree with IGN, Gamespot, and Game Informer the most. I rent practically everything I play anyway (20-30 games in a month with a blockbuster pass) and it's extremely rare that I pay more than $5 for a game I haven't rented (unless I know I can sell it for profit if I don't like it).

EDIT: Though there isn't a single game I love that hasn't gotten an 8 or higher from at least one of those three sources, so I obviously agree with them somewhat.
 
I generally read multiple reviews on a title before I make up my mind. But I usually go to Gamespot & IGN first. Then if Im borderline I'll look at other reviews, or go to gamerankings and see all the reviews at once. ;)
 
For a fast review I checkl IGN. If I plan on buying the game I check various sites, mostly sites the feature reader reviews. And I usually skip the positive sides of the game and look at the negatives to see how it stand up to the hype.
 
I used to read IGN but the site is a fucking mess. It wasn't like the reviews were so awesome that it was worth it.
 
I don't use any reviews. I've played far too many games that have been great, and everyone says they suck. And I've played far too many games that I hate, but everyone says they're great.

The only opinion I trust is my own.
 
[quote name='Brak']GameSpot.[/QUOTE]

If I do read reviews, I go to Gamespot. Typically they are overly critical, which is fine by me. I know that if a game gets a 9+ there it's worth my time. I can't say the same for other sites.
 
I tend to go to IGN--I don't think I've come across a review I haven't agreed with.

Gamespot does tend to be overly critical and I tend to enjoy games a bit more than they do, it seems.
 
Other, I trust the gamers on sites like CAG. All that matters is if the people out there who buy the game are having a fun time with it. I just go with the majority. I probably wouldn't have bought Phoenix Wright if I hadn't listened to the gamers, but rather the reviewers.
 
[quote name='munch']If I do read reviews, I go to Gamespot. Typically they are overly critical, which is fine by me. I know that if a game gets a 9+ there it's worth my time. I can't say the same for other sites.[/quote]

completely agree. i'd rather someone be more harsh than forgiving when judging a 50-60 dollar product. ign tends to be the "nicer" of the two, making it a bit harder to really buy into what score they give. but as most said, gamerankings is the way to go.
 
I trust just about every mag & site except Gamepro. I tend to avoid reader opinions as it usually boils down to ignorant remarks from people who barely touched the game in question.

What people rarely ever get is that they suck at giving reviews. People need to learn that just because they dislike a certain game, it doesn't make the game overhyped or bad in any way, shape or form.
 
I usually don't read reviews. I mostly just keep up with trailers/gameplay videos and other information in regards to a specific game and then form my own opinion.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Gamerankings.com. If I had to go with a single source, I'd pick EGM. They give most games three reviewers, and don't use a Satan-spawned five point system. I stopped trusting Gamespot (and for that matter, Peter Molyneux and Lionhead Studios) altogether after Black & White II. What a waste of money that game was.[/QUOTE]

Yes, EGM has a good thing going on. Three reviewers, each with their own, and often contrasting, opinion.


I do check GameRankings first, though.
 
Usually people here on cheapassgamer.com are pretty honest about how good or bad a game is. And since we're all cheap ass gamers, we're pretty honest if it's worth the bang in your buck.
 
I go to IGN for my first review. They usually dump alot of time into playing the game so I trust them whey they point out the "little things" bad about the game.

Then I go to the specific message board of the game on gamefaqs to see what all the early adopters think. After that if the game still sounds good then I come to CAG for some final input while looking for a deal for the game.
 
I find that IGN falls most in line with my opinions. GameSpot's reviews are great too, but I find them to be slightly more critical than I would be, so I usually take their score and add 0.5 or 1.0; I find that this addition tends to bring the score to where I would rate the game. I used to like EGM's reviews a lot, but the past few issues, it seems like they've been overly critical, especially of the Wii games; also, their reviews seem briefer now, sometimes not citing any faults with a game but giving it around a 7.0 anyway.
 
Gamespot because they are tougher (generally)

IGN lost my respect when they gave True Crime: Streets of LA a high rating. That game sucked!
 
People trust whoever has the same opinion as them. If source A says that a certain game/system sucks while source B says its the best thing ever people are going to go with the site that has the same opinion as them even though in the past they have gone with the source they are now disagreeing with.

At least, that's what I've seen from people so far.
 
[quote name='rickonker']Not after their Red Steel review[/quote]

I think they gave Red Steel about what it deserves. It's a very fun game once you master the controls. I'd assume that most of those who have given the game low scores haven't spent enough time with it.
 
I trusted Gamespot from the time it opened up until about last year. Then I realized they're giving some ridiculous scores to games both good and bad.

I find IGN pretty much hits the nail on the head for what I'm looking for in games, so I've switched.
 
A source that hasn't been mentioned yet I think is Gametrailers. With their video reviews all I have to do is watch it and listen to what they are saying about it and I have an idea on how much I would enjoy the game, I dont even need to see the score they give it.
 
[quote name='Rei no Otaku']I don't use any reviews. I've played far too many games that have been great, and everyone says they suck. And I've played far too many games that I hate, but everyone says they're great.

The only opinion I trust is my own.[/QUOTE]

A-fucking-Men
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top