What reviews site you prefer. IGN or Gamespot?

[HaSoOoN-MHD]

I don't go to review sites to decide on what games to get. Many times they either do the following:

 

a) Accept bribes thus certain games get certain scores that I feel personally they shouldn't even deserve it.

Ain't true gamers most of the time, more like talking PR heads.

c) Their writing and knowledge of game series is crap. If you do not believe me read the Dead Space 2.

d) Those who accept 750k from an certain company to start up than give the other platforms lower scores *COUGH Polygon*

e) Journalist who are whiny because they want something free. This one I will say that many journalist whined about not getting an free PS4 (AND yes I'm looking at Adam Sessler who's an joke of an journalist now because of that).

 

Avoid big time review sites believe me. They are really bad. I look at indie sites, and certain video broadcasters. Today's journalist accept bribes, can't game, and just give 10's at the wrong time. Hell Gamespot gave Might and Magic X an 6/10 and I'm enjoying the living heck out of it each chance I get from taking an break Playstation trophy hunting. 

Avoid game journalist the big ones, you'll make the industry a better place.

Give me proof of reviewers taking bribe that isn't the Kane and Lynch scandal which was already explained by Geff himself. Just because they give a game a score you don't think it deserves doesn't mean they're bribed. This is a huge problem in that when ever a reviewer disagrees with what a person may think of the game, yep he's bribed and stupid.

 

What is a ''true gamer'', exactly?

 

Erm...what's wrong with the Dead Space 2 review? i'v played through the entire series and love the first two, the review was fairly spot on if you ask me.

 

Never heard of this Polygon case, mind telling me about it? and it seems like something that doesn't go on a daily basis. Same with the whole free ordeal, I sincerely doubt most journalists, after playing a good game, go ''yep I didn't get it for free, bad score lads, publish it.''.

[quit342]

I don't go to review sites to decide on what games to get. Many times they either do the following:

 

a) Accept bribes thus certain games get certain scores that I feel personally they shouldn't even deserve it.

Ain't true gamers most of the time, more like talking PR heads.

c) Their writing and knowledge of game series is crap. If you do not believe me read the Dead Space 2.

d) Those who accept 750k from an certain company to start up than give the other platforms lower scores *COUGH Polygon*

e) Journalist who are whiny because they want something free. This one I will say that many journalist whined about not getting a free PS4 (AND yes I'm looking at Adam Sessler who's an joke of an journalist now because of that).

 

Avoid big time review sites believe me. They are really bad. I look at indie sites, and certain video broadcasters. Today's journalist accept bribes, can't game, and just give 10's at the wrong time. Hell Gamespot gave Might and Magic X an 6/10 and I'm enjoying the living heck out of it each chance I get from taking an break Playstation trophy hunting. 

Avoid game journalist the big ones, you'll make the industry a better place.

Adam's twitter never said he was upset because of that reason. It could have been PS4 HDCP. Many journalist and youtubers were upset by HDCP.  I highly doubt he was complaining about not getting a PS4 for free. Revision 3 would have bought one have bought one anyone and he could buy one for his personal use.

Give me proof of reviewers taking bribe that isn't the Kane and Lynch scandal which was already explained by Geff himself. Just because they give a game a score you don't think it deserves doesn't mean they're bribed. This is a huge problem in that when ever a reviewer disagrees with what a person may think of the game, yep he's bribed and stupid.

 

What is a ''true gamer'', exactly?

 

Erm...what's wrong with the Dead Space 2 review? i'v played through the entire series and love the first two, the review was fairly spot on if you ask me.

 

Never heard of this Polygon case, mind telling me about it? and it seems like something that doesn't go on a daily basis. Same with the whole free ordeal, I sincerely doubt most journalists, after playing a good game, go ''yep I didn't get it for free, bad score lads, publish it.''.

I agree, most journalist don't give a game a good score or bad score based on if the review got it for free. Fans of the game just make up this if it didn't get the score the wanted.

[lordfenton]

Let's go throught what some people are blinded by.

 

First of all if you google Polygon 750k or  Polygon 750,000 than you see that they are basically in MS Pockets. Look at some of their reviews even lower scores of certain good games like The Last of Us getting lower while other sites and fans saying it's a good game. Hell even the PS4 of COD:Ghosts got .5 lower despite the fact that the PS4 is the more better version than the Xbox One.

 

Exclusive reviews those gives reds flags when they got the game early. Your blinded if something is up if you don't smell something is funny if it's an extremely early review before the review window and it gets an magic 10 out of 10.  If they didn't give an high score those sites will be on something called BLACKLISTED. It happened before to some smaller sites. That's my problem is with the reviewers is that journalist don't criticize the games hard enough so the publishers and developers works on another project to improve on the problems like they did in the past instead of sitting on their arses and count the money. I'll ask again but in bold letters this time. When the last time you saw an high scoring game on an popular site said it was good and you got home and it was not so good 8-10 experience.
 

Adam Sessler whined about not getting an Free PS4 so he went after the HDCP. There are WAYS around the HDCP and those people should of spent the time waiting for the box to come in and worked around it. Hell some YouTubers not using the share feature already found work arounds. That's my problem with Sessler is he whined about that instead of just waited for an fix around like everyone else did.

 

Today's view gamer journalist are basically talking PR heads. They'll see how great certain games are and the fans see how bad that game is. Many of em are out of touch. Just check out metacritic reviews of the certain games to see one extreme being the journalist being the game to buy thus filling the pockets of certain publishers while you read some good reader reviews (Not the ones who's trolls but the ones who actually played game and points out critical issues like server queues on an single player game).  I'd take my peers over some talking PR head any day.

My point is the journalist the big ones either give higher scores or get blacklisted. That is why I read on peer aka the true gamers like you and many others who played the actual game for more than the the reviewers played and in many cases especially on this site platted the game. Sure there are a few journalist who got plats but the majority of em don't even play instead PR speak. They don't get freebees they tend to lower the score. As I said go with the people and small reviewers who actually played the game for awhile.

[HaSoOoN-MHD]

Let's go throught what some people are blinded by.

 

First of all if you google Polygon 750k or  Polygon 750,000 than you see that they are basically in MS Pockets. Look at some of their reviews even lower scores of certain good games like The Last of Us getting lower while other sites and fans saying it's a good game. Hell even the PS4 of COD:Ghosts got .5 lower despite the fact that the PS4 is the more better version than the Xbox One.

 

Exclusive reviews those gives reds flags when they got the game early. Your blinded if something is up if you don't smell something is funny if it's an extremely early review before the review window and it gets an magic 10 out of 10.  If they didn't give an high score those sites will be on something called BLACKLISTED. It happened before to some smaller sites. That's my problem is with the reviewers is that journalist don't criticize the games hard enough so the publishers and developers works on another project to improve on the problems like they did in the past instead of sitting on their arses and count the money. I'll ask again but in bold letters this time. When the last time you saw an high scoring game on an popular site said it was good and you got home and it was not so good 8-10 experience.

 

Adam Sessler whined about not getting an Free PS4 so he went after the HDCP. There are WAYS around the HDCP and those people should of spent the time waiting for the box to come in and worked around it. Hell some YouTubers not using the share feature already found work arounds. That's my problem with Sessler is he whined about that instead of just waited for an fix around like everyone else did.

 

Today's view gamer journalist are basically talking PR heads. They'll see how great certain games are and the fans see how bad that game is. Many of em are out of touch. Just check out metacritic reviews of the certain games to see one extreme being the journalist being the game to buy thus filling the pockets of certain publishers while you read some good reader reviews (Not the ones who's trolls but the ones who actually played game and points out critical issues like server queues on an single player game).  I'd take my peers over some talking PR head any day.

My point is the journalist the big ones either give higher scores or get blacklisted. That is why I read on peer aka the true gamers like you and many others who played the actual game for more than the the reviewers played and in many cases especially on this site platted the game. Sure there are a few journalist who got plats but the majority of em don't even play instead PR speak. They don't get freebees they tend to lower the score. As I said go with the people and small reviewers who actually played the game for awhile.

First of all, the idea that a platinum = gamer makes no sense. Trophies, platinums, achievements and achievement points are not a measure of how much of a gamer you are, they are a complimentary that keeps you going on and playing a game even when it comes the tim to put it back in the case and stick it in the shelf.

 

Now, on to other points: I just searched up the Polygon 750K thing and it was so plainly obvious which is why I believe it isn't a general thing with reviewers, it would often leak out or get busted somehow as it'd done in the few cases where it did happen. Just like most things relating to this industry and the public it won't be so discreet.

 

More often that not review copies are sent in to avoid late reviews which can lead to complications. Most of the time companies demand things such as review copies. Heck, even small time companies and YouTubers get review copies, are they all bought out too? perfect scores aren't being handed out like Candy,  but being overtly pessimistic about a game isn't the way to go either but it should be neutrality instead. 

The last time I was unsastified with a experience that received critical acclaim? the one that stands out the most is probably Skyrim which I really detest and don't enjoy at all, for the most part critics tend to be accurate when it comes to games and even more so when it comes to movies, but that's something completely off topic.

 

Also, that logic makes no sense and is rather contradictory with what you said about developers/publishers needing to improve or whatever. If nobody bothered to point it out it would have gone unnoticed. He/they shouldn't have to find loopholes around it. If you buy a game that has a game breaking glitch around the first chapter, would you complain? you probably would. I mean, it will probably be patched, so shouldn't I be able to tell you ''just stop whining''?

If you give them leeway on this kind of stuff it opens a door for them to do even worse stuff. And finally, the whole ''freebies'' thing, i'm pretty sure the reviewing firm rather than one single reviewer buy the game. Like, IGN the entity provides the games for the devs, I don't think Greg Miller walks to the store and buys all the games to review.

 

And oh, Metacritic user reviews are terrible. 9/10 of the time they're horribly bloates towards the ''omg 10/10'' scale or ''THIS GAME IS A 0/10'' scale.

[quit342]

 

 

 

Adam Sessler whined about not getting an Free PS4 so he went after the HDCP. There are WAYS around the HDCP and those people should of spent the time waiting for the box to come in and worked around it. Hell some YouTubers not using the share feature already found work arounds. That's my problem with Sessler is he whined about that instead of just waited for an fix around like everyone else did.Today's view gamer journalist are basically talking PR heads. They'll see how great certain games are and the fans see how bad that game is. Many of em are out of touch. Just check out metacritic reviews of the certain games to see one extreme being the journalist being the game to buy thus filling the pockets of certain publishers while you read some good reader reviews (Not the ones who's trolls but the ones who actually played game and points out critical issues like server queues on an single player game).  I'd take my peers over some talking PR head any day.

My point is the journalist the big ones either give higher scores or get blacklisted. That is why I read on peer aka the true gamers like you and many others who played the actual game for more than the the reviewers played and in many cases especially on this site platted the game. Sure there are a few journalist who got plats but the majority of em don't even play instead PR speak. They don't get freebees they tend to lower the score. As I said go with the people and small reviewers who actually played the game for awhile.

 By using a HDCP Stripper you can record game footage however, it is illegal. If he used the HDCP stripper, his video won't be monetized. He may have been upset because he fear he couldn't do his video reviews and lose his job as  journalist . Adam doesn't care what other  journalist  give as a review score. He gave Crysis 3 a 2/5 and GOW:A an 3/5. At the very least, his reviews are better than console fanboy's reviews. Most ​ journalist don't have time to plat a game because they have to review and play more game than you play in a year. While some journalist are biased, most aren't.

[Lion-Lhasa]

Out of those 2 I prefer Gamespot, mostly because I used to listen to their Hotspot podcast and I liked the people on there.

Their reviews also seem to be much less biased.

In regards to IGN, anything that isn't CoD is awful and CoD itself is perfection. At least Gamespot are a bit more discreet about taking bribes.

 

I much prefer videogamer.com, mostly because of their youtube channel I feel like I know those people and I know that they're not so biased. If a game is bad they will say so, especially the recently 'retired' Matt Lees. They're not afraid to call companies out on their BS.

 

In the end though I will watch a trailer and some gameplay and decide if I like it myself. The only reason I read/watch reviews is because I like to hear other peoples' opinions on things I like or find interesting. Sometimes I'll watch a video review like AngryJoe or something... Zero Punctuation also, but that's mostly for lols.