What reviews site you prefer. IGN or Gamespot?

[KanadeAmasuka]

To be honest none. Why you might ask because both IGN and Gamespot base their rating according to their point of view, for example on the game play, graphics, etc... they might say i think ummm... pokemon is a 3 out a 5 ( don't remember the actually rate) but for me is 10 out of 10 because I'm a huge PKM fan so I never check ratings on games like never i just buy them and check them out myself and when finish rate them ah really love the game or ehh its okay or wow this game blows...

 

[Lady Blanc]

To be honest I like neither, I may also have a Game Informer subscription, but I only use it to get a rough idea on a game's mechanics, I don't pay any attention to what score they (or anyone else) give a game, because it's just opinion, nothing more, nothing less. I fail to see why anyone would blindly follow a review as well, it's akin to having someone make up your mind for you.

[Arkthur]

To further add to my process: I'm not sure anyone shares a similar habit, but in the past few years, I've been using Zero Punctuation when it comes down to trying games from a new perspective.

Sure, the opinions shouldn't be used solely to base whether or not the game is good, but it gives you the angle as where to expect all the bad things to come from.

 

If you go into a game expecting shit, you're more than likely often going to find yourself a bit more pleased than not. It's easier to develop a solid opinion when looking up than down, that's for sure.

I used to watch him too. But he has spoiled a couple of games for me during his reviews so I stopped.

[ExHaseo]

I don't like any review site. A review is just a single person's opinion, and honestly, most reviewers are pretty spoiled and/or obviously corrupt. Almost any time there's a somewhat challenging game released, reviewers freak out and say it's bad. The only exception is Dark Souls.

A lot of the time, reviewers don't even play entirely through a game before reviewing it, and I don't think you can really know a game enough to analyze it unless you've beaten it.

These bigger sites also tend to pan certain games for no real reason, other than because they aren't mainstream. A mainstream game will get a 8 or 9 with half of the review complaining about a bad camera, glitches, rehashed game mechanics, or even a bad story, but then a review for a little known game will be basically all praise, except they didn't like one of the songs, or something equally small, and they'll give it a 5 or 6.

Anyway, in my opinion, it's much better to do independent research on a game you're skeptical about, rather than take a random guy on the internet's opinion for whether a game is good or bad. Especially since they could just be getting paid to put out a good review, which most definitely happens. Gamespot is owned by Gamestop, and you can easily tell who gives them money for good reviews. Like stated in the OP, Last of Us got an 8, and I can almost guarantee you it's because Naughty Dog didn't pay them enough money for a 9 or 10.

Edited January 10, 2014 by ExHaseo

[Mr_MovieMan29]

I never look at review sites individually, usually I look at Metacritic and get the general consensus. But I like Colin Moriarty off IGN because we tend to have the same tastes in games. So I look at his reviews quite often.

[ASSASSIN-987_]

ign is better than Gamespot, but Classic Game Room and Angry Joe are the best. And Metacritic because it averages scores.

Edited January 10, 2014 by ASSASSIN-987_

[Crisis001]

Have to go with IGN cause I've been checking their site for a long time and besides, I've rarely been on Gamespot.

[HaSoOoN-MHD]

I just use Metacritc since as said above, averages scores out. Usually a reviewer or two can be off but rarely, for me at the very least, is the consensus off.

[GizMo_The_Great]

I don't use either. I used to write reviews, but I gave it up. It was ruining games for me. The fact is, these people are given these games for free, then paid to scrutinise every little detail. I'm not even going to go into the claims than IGN amongst others have taken money to give certain games good reviews. ~#cough#~ CoD #~cough~#

Trust me when I say, playing a game just to offer up a review is one of the dullest and tedious things ever. There is no way to enjoy something when you are constantly looking for faults..

The best reviews you can read are ones from actual gamers. The ones who actually play the game for the same reason you do...for enjoyment...

[Marccap]

I prefer IGN for reviews and news.....

[MarkGibbons]

I like IGN. Gamespot gave The Last of US an 8.0 only. Dont you find this suspicious? 

I gave the last of us a 4.5/10, shockingly bad game.

[spyrosmicha]

I gave the last of us a 4.5/10, shockingly bad game.

 

Can you justify this, because most people say its a masterpiece. I havent play the game yet but i want to know why you think it is so bad. 

Edited January 12, 2014 by spyrosmicha

[HaSoOoN-MHD]

I don't use either. I used to write reviews, but I gave it up. It was ruining games for me. The fact is, these people are given these games for free, then paid to scrutinise every little detail. I'm not even going to go into the claims than IGN amongst others have taken money to give certain games good reviews. ~#cough#~ CoD #~cough~#

Trust me when I say, playing a game just to offer up a review is one of the dullest and tedious things ever. There is no way to enjoy something when you are constantly looking for faults..

The best reviews you can read are ones from actual gamers. The ones who actually play the game for the same reason you do...for enjoyment...

Hugely disagree. They aren't paid to scrutinize every little detail, they're supposed to just play the game, from and unbiased point of view, and then say what they enjoyed and didn't enjoy. Just like all gamers do, you enjoy some games, others you don't. Also, the hate on CoD has to stop. People act like they're giving them 10/10 all across the board, when the scores have been in steady decline ever since MW2. 

 

I'd always take a critic review over like..a Metacritic user review because these often tend to be extreme bias like ''THIS GAME HAS A BAD ENDING 3/10'' or something extremely biased to the opposite side. Of course, not all user reviews are that way but you catch my drift. I often find critics in general trustworthy.

 

I gave the last of us a 4.5/10, shockingly bad game.

I'd love to hear the justification for such an obscenely low score, myself.

[Dark_Tooth69]

I always take reviews with a grain of salt. I think it's better to talk to other gamers that have played the game.

[DarknessKey92]

I don't like IGN, they get paid to make factual reviews & end up making reviews based on their feel opinions. When I saw how the guy reviewed Castevania Lords of Shadow : Mirror of Fate(3DS Version)

I was a little irritated over how he was saying how the game failed to try to be too much like the as he tried to say "Successfully omnipotent Nes, GBA, DS versions" or his possible all time favorite 

Castlevania: Symphony of the night.

Even after seeing his review I bought the game & ended up really enjoying it, I'm not saying the game is perfect, but I found that much of what he said was false...sure U do switch a lot as U progress through the story, but if U really think about it the mechanics were similar in the key combat system(everyone still ends up using a whip style of combat). I liked how I could mark things on my map that I found needed a upgrade to reach.

I'm a big Castlevania fan too, but to wage a review based on ur opinon is just ignorant especially when u are getting paid for it, the Mercury version is a Remake/Reboot not a Sequel & I don't understand how the controls were difficult for him, the game was pretty easy to be honest.

I really don't think the game deserved a 4.7...I'm not expecting the game to get a 10 or 8, but a 4.7?...really? that's not even a decent rating. 

 

At the end of the day I kinda don't care for reviews I still end up buying a game I feel is something I will enjoy..I mean U can't expect a review to cover a game in it's entirety, but oh well that's just my opinion of course it can be true or false in your eyes based on preference of my said angle here.

Edited January 13, 2014 by DarknessKey92

[BooneJusticius]

I'm glad to see so many people here realize that someone else's opinion doesn't mean anything. Remember, an opinion is an opinion, it's not fact and it's neither wrong nor right, it just is.

 

I pretty much never bother with reviews because nobody else will know whether or not I'll enjoy a game. I can see reading a review to see what the reviewer experienced, and even then taking that with a grain of salt such as Justin McElroy's Joystiq review for Nier, but basing your entire decision on whether or not to buy a game solely on what score they gave it is just wrong. Every time I see something like that it just makes me want to say "these are not the droids you're looking for". Unless of course you happen to have the exact same taste in games as a reviewer but the odds of that happening are incredibly slim.

 

I would rather watch a little bit of footage about a game or read about the game on a developer's site.

Edited January 14, 2014 by BooneJusticius

[TheVader66]

I hate them both especially gamespot

[HaSoOoN-MHD]

I don't like IGN, they get paid to make factual reviews & end up making reviews based on their feel opinions. When I saw how the guy reviewed Castevania Lords of Shadow : Mirror of Fate(3DS Version)

I was a little irritated over how he was saying how the game failed to try to be too much like the as he tried to say "Successfully omnipotent Nes, GBA, DS versions" or his possible all time favorite 

Castlevania: Symphony of the night.

Even after seeing his review I bought the game & ended up really enjoying it, I'm not saying the game is perfect, but I found that much of what he said was false...sure U do switch a lot as U progress through the story, but if U really think about it the mechanics were similar in the key combat system(everyone still ends up using a whip style of combat). I liked how I could mark things on my map that I found needed a upgrade to reach.

I'm a big Castlevania fan too, but to wage a review based on ur opinon is just ignorant especially when u are getting paid for it, the Mercury version is a Remake/Reboot not a Sequel & I don't understand how the controls were difficult for him, the game was pretty easy to be honest.

I really don't think the game deserved a 4.7...I'm not expecting the game to get a 10 or 8, but a 4.7?...really? that's not even a decent rating. 

 

At the end of the day I kinda don't care for reviews I still end up buying a game I feel is something I will enjoy..I mean U can't expect a review to cover a game in it's entirety, but oh well that's just my opinion of course it can be true or false in your eyes based on preference of my said angle here.

How can a person make a ''factual'' review? you keep saying it's his opinion yada yada yada but all the opinions you, yourself bring up, are also opinion. They're paid for partial reviews, reviews with no bias, not ''factual'' reviews as that is plain impossible, considering the subject matter is objective.

[DarknessKey92]

How can a person make a ''factual'' review? you keep saying it's his opinion yada yada yada but all the opinions you, yourself bring up, are also opinion. They're paid for partial reviews, reviews with no bias, not ''factual'' reviews as that is plain impossible, considering the subject matter is objective.

I overlooked to add "Should" between "they & get" to make "they should get paid", since I'm not a perfect speller and am known to make typo mistakes which I later try to fix.

But regardless what I meant was they(or at least him) should get paid to make factual reviews, which would be a "informative review revolving around the game's already completed retail content, that depicts its pros and cons as fact, for the interested potential/uncertain buyers", It should be his job as a reviewer to give buyers/gamers a well informed broken down perspective explaining the game in a  neutral non-bias way to help inform those who currently don't have the game, and are depending on his review for indepth info to decide on actually buying it or not.

here's a few lines from his review:

"Both GBA & DS saw a slew of high quality metroidvania inspired titles, in the vain of 1 of the best games of all time....Symphony of the Night...but if you were expecting LoS: MoF to continue that proud tradition, you're going to be disappointed...Fragmented, disjointed, and shallow, are just a few of the words that describe MoF. A game that virtually does..NOTHING!" better then the GBA and DS Castlevania Classics you're far better of playing"

 

Also The first thing he said as he was supposed to review/explain the actual "gameplay" was: "MoF has absolutely no idea what it is, it doesn't know if it's a old school castlevania game? or a Metroidvania game? or even a Mercury style game...It's a half Hazard amalgamation of elements from Castlevania history, and it comes off as totally unfocused!"

He is honestly the only person I've ever heard complain about the controls.

 

I'm not gonna quote everything he said, since it would be way too much to type, and I don't want to spam more, but from hearing that(and many other lines)...how exactly is this a "non-bias review"?

Honestly I hardly learned anything from his review. He was given the Mercury Castlevania Lords of Shadow: Mirror of Fate game by IGN to look over and ...instead we mainly got a bias Castlevania Classics fanboy nostalgia ranting on the reboot version. Thinking that all castlevania games should be the same, failing to try & see what the next gen can bring, as he compared everything he thought failed to be just like the GBA & DS titles; something he was clearly not professional over, and instead based it on personal preference. It's not bad enough "Colin Moriarty's" getting paid @ the end of the day, but another irritating concern is that while others give a way better review and not see a single Cent, instead they get flagged/shutdown for not being a big name channel, while all they wanted to do is the job he was paid to do, which is to help inform us to make our purchase.

Even Gamespot gave a better review then him, something many found as a shock, on a count that they are said to be just as bad as IGN. Gamespot also said it had it's flaws, but at least they gave detailed indepth non-bias facts explaining their pros and cons on the game at hand. All while not once referencing a Classics title comparison.

 

And of course my comment is a opinion, it's a comment expressing my thought, not a review...My opinion is a opinion reflecting my irritated thought over his nonprofessional manner of reviewing.

But like I said before, you're entitled to your opinion on the matter just like I'm entitled to mine.

[HaSoOoN-MHD]

I overlooked to add "Should" between "they & get" to make "they should get paid", since I'm not a perfect speller and am known to make typo mistakes which I later try to fix.

But regardless what I meant was they(or at least him) should get paid to make factual reviews, which would be a "informative review revolving around the game's already completed retail content, that depicts its pros and cons as fact, for the interested potential/uncertain buyers", It should be his job as a reviewer to give buyers/gamers a well informed broken down perspective explaining the game in a  neutral non-bias way to help inform those who currently don't have the game, and are depending on his review for indepth info to decide on actually buying it or not.

here's a few lines from his review:

"Both GBA & DS saw a slew of high quality metroidvania inspired titles, in the vain of 1 of the best games of all time....Symphony of the Night...but if you were expecting LoS: MoF to continue that proud tradition, you're going to be disappointed...Fragmented, disjointed, and shallow, are just a few of the words that describe MoF. A game that virtually does..NOTHING!" better then the GBA and DS Castlevania Classics you're far better of playing"

 

Also The first thing he said as he was supposed to review/explain the actual "gameplay" was: "MoF has absolutely no idea what it is, it doesn't know if it's a old school castlevania game? or a Metroidvania game? or even a Mercury style game...It's a half Hazard amalgamation of elements from Castlevania history, and it comes off as totally unfocused!"

He is honestly the only person I've ever heard complain about the controls.

 

I'm not gonna quote everything he said, since it would be way too much to type, and I don't want to spam more, but from hearing that(and many other lines)...how exactly is this a "non-bias review"?

Honestly I hardly learned anything from his review. He was given the Mercury Castlevania Lords of Shadow: Mirror of Fate game by IGN to look over and ...instead we mainly got a bias Castlevania Classics fanboy nostalgia ranting on the reboot version. Thinking that all castlevania games should be the same, failing to try & see what the next gen can bring, as he compared everything he thought failed to be just like the GBA & DS titles; something he was clearly not professional over, and instead based it on personal preference. It's not bad enough "Colin Moriarty's" getting paid @ the end of the day, but another irritating concern is that while others give a way better review and not see a single Cent, instead they get flagged/shutdown for not being a big name channel, while all they wanted to do is the job he was paid to do, which is to help inform us to make our purchase.

Even Gamespot gave a better review then him, something many found as a shock, on a count that they are said to be just as bad as IGN. Gamespot also said it had it's flaws, but at least they gave detailed indepth non-bias facts explaining their pros and cons on the game at hand. All while not once referencing a Classics title comparison.

 

And of course my comment is a opinion, it's a comment expressing my thought, not a review...My opinion is a opinion reflecting my irritated thought over his nonprofessional manner of reviewing.

But like I said before, you're entitled to your opinion on the matter just like I'm entitled to mine.

The review in question having trouble with the control doesn't mean much just because no one else actually complained about them, it's still as equally valid as any other pro or con. When you're reviewing a game that is part of a series, you rate it based on enjoyment and how well it holds up to the previous games in the series/brand, as it is a follow up. There is nothing biased about him comparing it to the previous games in the series. All reviews are based on personal preference, but unbiased if that makes sense. They play the game, they review it and post what they think based on the way they saw it from their standpoint, but they don't go in with any pre-conceived notions or ideals. From what i'v read of the review, he isn't saying all Castelvania games need to be the same or going on a nostalgia romp, he's just doing a comparison between this game and previous one's in the series to give perspective into the rating.

 

Really, whenever there is a game in a series, it will be compared to it's predecessors. By the media, by the fans, by the reviewers, everything. It's not a negative that it's compared, it just gives wider scope when it comes to things.  

[Arkthur]

I overlooked to add "Should" between "they & get" to make "they should get paid", since I'm not a perfect speller and am known to make typo mistakes which I later try to fix.

But regardless what I meant was they(or at least him) should get paid to make factual reviews, which would be a "informative review revolving around the game's already completed retail content, that depicts its pros and cons as fact, for the interested potential/uncertain buyers", It should be his job as a reviewer to give buyers/gamers a well informed broken down perspective explaining the game in a  neutral non-bias way to help inform those who currently don't have the game, and are depending on his review for indepth info to decide on actually buying it or not.

Thats impossible mate. A factual review would be detailing aspects of the game that every gamer is going to enjoy or hate, there is no way to do that.

Once you start listing pros and cons, you start using you own eperiences of the game and thats it. The only way you can do a review without giving your personal opinions would be to say, The game works/It's glitched, and show 30 minutes of gameplay with no commentary, thats the only way everything  showed in the review is a fact.

[effdeegee]

I don't use review sites like IGN or Gamespot. They are paid by corporations to mold your perception. Whichever company pays the most, their game(s) get the best reviews.

 

I tend to ask around with fellow gamers here and at my local video game store and watch videos of gameplay and then judge for myself.

Edited January 21, 2014 by effdeegee

[Parker]

I don't use review sites like IGN or Gamespot. They are paid by corporations to mold your perception. Whichever company pays the most, their game(s) get the best reviews.

 

I tend to ask around with fellow gamers here and at my local video game store and watch videos of gameplay and then judge for myself.

 

Do you have a source for that? I see people make that claim all the time but aside from the Kayne and Lynch scandal I have yet to see any credible evidence that this is a common thing in the industry. I'd really like to see some solid evidence that publishers are paying reviewers for positive reviews. 

 

 

Parker

[effdeegee]

Do you have a source for that? I see people make that claim all the time but aside from the Kayne and Lynch scandal I have yet to see any credible evidence that this is a common thing in the industry. I'd really like to see some solid evidence that publishers are paying reviewers for positive reviews. 

 

 

Parker

 

You just answered the question yourself.

 

Mr. Zurkon lives on fear; his currency is pain.

Edited January 21, 2014 by effdeegee

[Parker]

You just answered the question yourself.

 

Mr. Zurkon lives on fear; his currency is pain.

 

So because we have one paid review it means the whole industry operates like that?

 

 

Parker