• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

So GAF, whats your most trusted site for reviews ?

Eurogamer, GiantBomb and a handful of YouTubers. EG's stable of writers usually align with my tastes quite well but when assessing whether to spend on an ambiguous EG 'no score' title (ie a 'if you like this sort of thing, it's this sort of thing' reviews) I'll cast around wider.

Sinatar said:
RPG Codex
Click to expand...

Not timely enough for me but when I've gotten pissed off with an RPG nowhere will relieve that 'Fuck this noise' pressure quite like a Codex review (also holy fuck at what passes for 'debate' over there, stick to the articles)
 
Not a single one. lol


I sort of give Gaf credit for being right...sometimes..lol.

This community directed me to Persona, which I loved, they also directed me to the Souls games....which I find more boring than beating my head against a wall.

I'd still go with this forum over most other publications.
 
I always go to several and compare and contrast flaws.

IGN, Gametrailers, etc. tend to be my main go to spots simply because I enjoy video reviews most.
 
I don't really have a site, but Tom Chick and Jeff Gerstman you can count on to tell the truth, even if it results in death threats or firings.
 
past experience, confidence in my tastes and Metacritic are enough to mitigate bad purchases

Nevertheless, I enjoy reading Kevin VanOrd (Gamespot), Jim Sterling (Jimquisition), Patrick Klepek (Kotaku), Kirk Hamilton (Kotaku), Jeff Gerstmann (Giantbomb), Brad Shoemaker (Giantbomb) and Alex Navarro (Giantbomb)
 
Gametrailers and Metacritic. Outside of their obvious flub with Halo: MCC, I think Gametrailers is a pretty non-biased and fair website.
 
I tend to trust the average on MC to be a generally good (though not perfect) indication of a game's quality.

If I had to choose one specific site/mag, probably Eurogamer.
 
I don't have one in particular, but i often agree with Eurogamer.
 
Metacritic:

Read the most positive reveiew and the most negative review. Then compare what you like and hate and see if the game for you + Youtube video.
 
I pretty much just watch some gameplay and read impressions on Neogaf, haven't read an actual review in a long, long time ( I think). So yeah, I naturally come about whether or not I want to get a game.
 
With GAF and Youtube I no longer see how reviews can benefit me in any way, let alone influence my purchasing decisions.
 
GAF as you get a lot more hands on details.

Ignore the console warriors on either side and then you get a pretty accurate impression
 
Stallion Dan said:
One that has no videogame advertising on it at all.
Click to expand...

Surely you understand that it's somewhat difficult for sites to survive without videogame advertising?

Ain't many companies who make home appliances looking to advertise on videogame sites. Then the second non-gaming companies like Doritos and Mountain Dew DO get involved, look what happens.

I do see the point that you're making, but ruling out sites that have videogame advertising at all is ridiculous. Sites that sell their OWN videogame advertising...now that's a problem. Sites with a third-party ad company doing the selling...fine by me.

Dr. Black Jack said:
Most modern "reviews" are a joke.
Click to expand...

That's mainly because the level of discourse in review comments is about the same as your post, as opposed to "I didn't agree with/like this review because of..."

It's usually just "OMG DIS REVIEW IS A JOKE" or "UR ALL SONY FANBOYS FOR GIVING THIs GAME A 9."

Reviews won't improve until the target audience learns to give constructive criticism over and above "I disagree with your opinion so you're a waste of space" which, let's face it, is the what 99% of people with negative opinions of reviews actually mean when they criticise.
 
Mostly only the reactions and impressions from GAF on the OT and sometimes IGN but only the ones by Jose Otero. I think his reviews are fair most of the time.
 
I know they got a lot of hate, particularly because they're so popular, but to be honest IGN's review scores usually tend to align with my thoughts on games. They're my go-to.

Polygon is the worst in my opinion.

Of course, Metacritic is the most helpful but it's not really a "review site" in my opinion.
 
As much as I hate that exaggerated Internet personality he uses, I general find Angry Joe to have balanced, fair criticism of games.

He tore Destiny apart for 40 minutes. It's a game I love but I agreed with most of his complaints. Subscribed that day.
 
I'll read through a Eurogamer review, but I usually go by GAF impressions, because I am able to ask GAF players questions about a game.
 
Since sites often use different writers and the output of those writers varies, I just read a bunch of reviews and judge whether a review is good or bad on a case-by-case basis.

The site that probably has the most consistently good reviews is Rock Paper Shotgun.
 
Zakalwe said:
I don't trust any one review site.
Click to expand...

Yup. Which is why i generally don't care for reviews anymore. I might check Metacritic or Gamerankings and together with impressions from gamers, and gameplay video's, that's enough to know if it's for me or not.
 
Kevin VanOrd's reviews, The JimQuisition, Eurogamer and GameInformer. However, I mostly watch direct gameplay footage nowadays.
 
Gaf, but after at least a week after a game is released, the hype is gone, the shiny things are gone, and gaffers start to analyze the core of the game.
Then hardly you get a wrong "review".
 
GAF is my go to. Don't really fully trust any site, since it's still only one man's opinion. But even then I do like to check out GameTrailers, Eurogamer, IGN, GameInformer etc. Generally I prefer video reviews these days as I like to see evidence of some of the pro's, con's and general comments. Then there's always Metacritic as a further gauge.
 
I watch IGN reviews just for reference.
Angry Joe because he is entertaining and i like his reviews.

But the most important are opinions from players. So i turn to gaf and other gaming forums. The truth is often in the middle ground between haters and lovers.
 
Industrialist said:
Surely you understand that it's somewhat difficult for sites to survive without videogame advertising?

Ain't many companies who make home appliances looking to advertise on videogame sites. Then the second non-gaming companies like Doritos and Mountain Dew DO get involved, look what happens.

I do see the point that you're making, but ruling out sites that have videogame advertising at all is ridiculous. Sites that sell their OWN videogame advertising...now that's a problem. Sites with a third-party ad company doing the selling...fine by me.



That's mainly because the level of discourse in review comments is about the same as your post, as opposed to "I didn't agree with/like this review because of..."

It's usually just "OMG DIS REVIEW IS A JOKE" or "UR ALL SONY FANBOYS FOR GIVING THIs GAME A 9."

Reviews won't improve until the target audience learns to give constructive criticism over and above "I disagree with your opinion so you're a waste of space" which, let's face it, is the what 99% of people with negative opinions of reviews actually mean when they criticise.
Click to expand...

Great post. This flippant attitude strikes me as incredibly adolescent.

It's so discouraging to see drive-by, LOL, "journalists"-type posts. Or conspiracy theorists who think "They're all on the take." which is LOL worthy itself if you knew how little pay most of these people make.

It's too to easy to be dismissive & cavalier without even acknowledging that people put hard work into game reviews. And that's a shame. Professional reviewers quite often make a choice to forgo decent wages to pursue their passion. And when they get dumped on by juvenile, hipster-cynicism, it always makes me cringe for them.
 
Everything Simon Parkin says is truth. This is simply fact. But it's a bit strange to say New Yorker, so then I would have to go with Eurogamer.
 
Industrialist said:
That's mainly because the level of discourse in review comments is about the same as your post, as opposed to "I didn't agree with/like this review because of..."

It's usually just "OMG DIS REVIEW IS A JOKE" or "UR ALL SONY FANBOYS FOR GIVING THIs GAME A 9."

Reviews won't improve until the target audience learns to give constructive criticism over and above "I disagree with your opinion so you're a waste of space" which, let's face it, is the what 99% of people with negative opinions of reviews actually mean when they criticise.
Click to expand...

I don't think that modern reviews are a joke because they present a subjective opinion that's different from mine.

I think they're a joke because they use an outdated X/10 + bullet points structure meant for magazines to prop up review aggregators, and that they rush to get their piece out day one for clicks instead of taking a few weeks/months to properly and accurately assess a game's worth.

Most games today have post launch content, patches, expansions, etc. that make it impossible to accurately judge a game's worth based on early review code from a dev/pub. Right or wrong, that's the way it is, and websites/blogs/authors are using an outdated form of criticism to deal with it.

My ideal review would be just the text. No quick takes, no scores, no bullet point critiques. Just write what you thought about the game at the time you played it. If the game changes significantly later on, write a followup piece. That's it.
 
I dont think that there will be any single critic whose tastes directly align with mine however if you are familiar with a critics tastes, then you can make an opinion on whether a game is for you regardless of whether that critic liked or disliked it. My most trusted sites are Rock Paper Shotgun, Eurogamer and Quarter to Three (Tom Chick), I also listen to the videogamer and daft souls podcasts so they probably impact on my buying decisions.
 
Aside from Gaf, I'd say Edge. They seem pretty unbiased and level-headed. I don't read their reviews either before finishing the game though, because they include spoilers just like all the rest.
 
I like Giant Bomb for reviews, and Metacritic to an extent.

I come to NeoGAF everyday, but I can't trust it before making purchases; it's hard to see through all the hype sometimes lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Who's your trusted reviewer for games?
2 3
105
988
Sticks replied
Weekend GAF: What's On Your Wish List for 2026?
28
709
bender replied
[Laura Fryer] The Devs Did It Right, So Why Are Mixtape’s Reviews So Broken?
2 3
142
519
winjer replied
What Are Your Most Played Games According to Platform Stats?
2
77
1K
SkeletonQuays replied
  • Poll
Most Upvoted Feedback on Xbox Player Voice (so far): Exclusives
2 3 4 5
228
717
ReasonBeing replied
Top Bottom