Gaming review websites

[Canada]

The only game review website that I know of is IGN are there any other notable ones that I should also be checking?

[Nordmann]

you've got;
gamespot.com
1up.com
gameinformer.com
gametrailers.com(just videos)
cvg.com

and many more.

[Snicket]

I would go anywhere but IGN.

[Blu-Runner]

IGN is horrible. I use gamespot.com

[slick1ru2]

http://www.Metacritic.com Compiles an average of all review websites, and also user reviews from that website. Also does the same with movies, TV shows and music. Its like Rotten Tomatoes.

[Trace17]

Originally Posted by Snicket

I would go anywhere but IGN.

Originally Posted by Blu-Runner

IGN is horrible. I use gamespot.com

A rule of thumb I use: You can't spell IGNorant without IGN

[RAZGRIZ-1]

Avoid IGN and Game Trailers like the plague. They have no idea what they're talking about. I suggest looking at metacritic.

[UK_fan_05]

Giantbomb and Game Informer are the best ones out there. Their videos are hilarious and the reviews are pretty good.

[tarvis]

http://www.giantbomb.com/

Metacritic is the worst. Giant Bomb has video Quick Looks, a weekly podcast, the amusing Endurance Run and every Thursday they play multiplayer games with the community.

vikings_fan_05 totally hadn't posted that when I started typing. I'm just slow.

[RAZGRIZ-1]

Originally Posted by tarvis

http://www.giantbomb.com/

Metacritic is the worst. Giant Bomb has video Quick Looks, a weekly podcast, the amusing Endurance Run and every Thursday they play multiplayer games with the community.

vikings_fan_05 totally hadn't posted that when I started typing. I'm just slow.

How is metacritic the worst? It pools all of the major reviewers grades into a composite score and lists each review.

[Trace17]

Originally Posted by Kakashi Sensai

How is metacritic the worst? It pools all of the major reviewers grades into a composite score and lists each review.

I don't know if it's "the worst", but if someone believes any of the major review site's grades are flawed, then imo, metacritic is flawed by default.

[tarvis]

Originally Posted by Kakashi Sensai

How is metacritic the worst? It pools all of the major reviewers grades into a composite score and lists each review.

I think calling the sites metacritic uses for its aggregate 'major' is a bit of a stretch. To keep things simple. Let's say I think a game is perfect. You think it's awful. That doesn't mean it's half good. It means what it means. I like the game and you don't. The only way any of us can parse that information is by reading a full review. Not by looking at a number and reading a blurb. As a random example, a review score is not going to tell you that Fallout: New Vegas suffers from game crippling bugs.

Which slightly touches on why I think it's funny when anyone attributes a review to a site rather than a particular reviewer.

[Trogdor2010]

I have seen a few good articles by IGN, but I never liked most game review websites largely because they make a subjective opinion into an objective opinion; in fact objectivity is one of the main aspects that are judged by so many of these games, and they really don't reflect on what others think. A truly good review is someone who views the material under their own perspectives and judgement, without attempting to cater toward other's insecurities; a truly subjective review meant to give insight, not enforce opinion.

One article I thought was borderline belligerent and insulting was that Dark Souls/Skyrim article at IGN they posted a couple of weeks ago. This is where they so obviously put a subjective topic and enforce it so objectively, it's scoulding to people that are interested in Skyrim, I though it was a joke at first.

[Jonno2009]

LOL it's funny people in this thread are saying to avoid IGN and Gametrailers and these are pretty much the only two i go to for reviews!

I also go to Joystiq.com alot for game news and they have reviews for every game. Check it out


http://www.joystiq.com/

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Trace17

I don't know if it's "the worst", but if someone believes any of the major review site's grades are flawed, then imo, metacritic is flawed by default.

Then you are wrong, by default. You can read the good, bad and ugly reviews as well as users on the website and get a much clearer picture of a game than by any single review by 1 person who may have an agenda on one website. And generally the overall reviews sums are pretty spot on, go and check it out for games you know. Its not just the "major" review sites included, its pretty much every published review they can find for the game by people who seem to know what they are doing. Gran Turismo 5 was given a rating in the 84/100 based on over 80 published critics reviews. The users of the website 7.5/10. And if you go and read the reviews, many are spot on.

Originally Posted by tarvis

I think calling the sites metacritic uses for its aggregate 'major' is a bit of a stretch. ...

Actually, they use the term leading, not major. Major denotes size or renown, vs leading which denotes trusted or at least fairly accurate.

[Trace17]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Then you are wrong, by default. You can read the good, bad and ugly reviews as well as users on the website and get a much clearer picture of a game than by any single review by 1 person who may have an agenda on one website. And generally the overall reviews sums are pretty spot on, go and check it out for games you know. And its not just the "major" review sites included, its pretty much every published review they can find for the game.

Wait, how am I wrong by default? I said it was flawed. You can't say the sum score represents all parts if you only acknowledge certain parts. Let's say for example that tarvis hates IGN and doesn't acknowledge any of their reviews. And let's say they gave a game a 100, most other reviews gave the game somewhere in the 80s. So how is the final metacritic score representative of the game, in tarvis' eyes? It's flawed if he doesn't acknowledge all parts.

But if you want to argue that metacritic is a good site to use to find reviews and not necessarily acknowledge the overall "score", then I would agree.

Personally, I don't agree with metacritic scores. But I usually go against the tide.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Trace17

Wait, how am I wrong by default? I said it was flawed. You can't say the sum score represents all parts if you only acknowledge certain parts. Let's say for example that tarvis hates IGN and doesn't acknowledge any of their reviews. And let's say they gave a game a 100, most other reviews gave the game somewhere in the 80s. So how is the final metacritic score representative of the game, in tarvis' eyes? It's flawed if he doesn't acknowledge all parts.

But if you want to argue that metacritic is a good site to use to find reviews and not necessarily acknowledge the overall "score", then I would agree.

Personally, I don't agree with metacritic scores. But I usually go against the tide.

That's pretty much what I am saying. And I want to know 1 game with a low Metacritic rating you think is awesome, just one.

[Trace17]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

That's pretty much what I am saying.

Okay then, I agree with that.

And I want to know 1 game with a low Metacritic rating you think is awesome, just one.

Depends on what people consider "low". I haven't seen many games on there below like 50. With the high scores given out nowadays, the system seems a bit skewed to the right. If you think 70s are low, I'm sure Medal of Honor or Tdu2 are in there, which I loved. Below that, I don't know, I'd have to dig through what games I used to have. And I'm too lazy to do that. Initially, what I meant is the opposite. Games get glowing reviews that I completely disagree with. I can name some of those. CoD games, LA Noire, NFS Hot Pursuit, Shift 2. All probably in the 90s (maybe not Shift 2) but I wouldn't even consider giving those games anything above a 70, if that. But this thread shouldn't be about my personal tastes. I just hope people out there don't base their opinion on a game on one review they read. If you haven't played it or can't rent/borrow it, do some research before you buy if you're even remotely hesitant.

[tarvis]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Actually, they use the term leading, not major. Major denotes size or renown, vs leading which denotes trusted or at least fairly accurate.

I was replying to Kakashi Sensai's post. However, major and leading are synonyms. I believe you mean connotation, not denotation. But, even then, they're synonyms.

[slick1ru2]

You have to remember, these reviews are done as the game was shipped, not in its current state (like GT5 with a dozen patches over 11 months). And you also have to remember when the game came out and what the competition, if any, was at the time. And you may be a fanatic at a genre of game, this is a score by an "average" gamer. You make think that GT5 is 99 and Shift 2 is 50 because of the handling. An average gamer probably won't, he just wants to drive around in an exotic car. The best thing about metacritic is all the reviews are there to look at and see why the game got a good or bad average.

Metacritic scores I agree with:

GT5 84 Shipped incomplete as admitted by dev,wanted 2 more years on it, would be higher in current state
SOCOM Confrontation 63... DEFINITELY, as shipped it was a disaster
Bad Company 2 88....probably would have been a little higher if they had seen all the free VIP releases
Shift 2 81...maybe a little high for how it was shipped, but probably close to it after the patch that fixed handling. Many thought it closer to real than the
sterile feel of other games.
Madden 12 79. A little low I think, but I think its because people want an all new game, not the same thing each year
Grid 87 About right, maybe a little high, but its high because at the time, not much to compare it to, no GT5, etc.. It was the most realistic PS3 racing game.
MoH 75. Some didn't like how the maps were, but mostly, not enough content at that price point.Incl the old game didn't make up for a short single
player and only a few online maps.
TDU2 70 Very buggy at launch, lots of issues. And the PS3 is still waiting for free content as a thanks for all the issues.

I'd consider a bad games starting in the 60s. And they do go to the 40s.