Support NeoGAF

[MC Safety]

I feel that reviews are only partly useful, a review does not cover personal experience.
I played a game which got bad reviews 'Spiderman Web of Shadows' and I still enjoyed it.

Here's the trap: A personal experience has very little value to a reader. That's because a game you like isn't always good and a game you dislike isn't always bad.

Part of a reviewer's job is to look beyond what he likes to find the elements necessary to build an argument as to a game's quality.

 

[Gaternator]

I am not saying reviews a useful, am saying you can't solely rely on them, some reviewers only play the first hour of the game.
That's why I play the game before judging it.

 

[Gaternator]

Here's the trap: A personal experience has very little value to a reader. That's because a game you like isn't always good and a game you dislike isn't always bad.

Part of a reviewer's job is to look beyond what he likes to find the elements necessary to build an argument as to a game's quality.

True but I feel like it makes the review more reliable, that's why I listen to a youtuber's opinion as they go into more depth.

 

[Afro Republican]

A review of imo is taking a game and grading it based on aspects of the game.

A review to modern gaming media is about trashing games that don't meet the 5 T's:

1. lgbT

2. Terminal Blu Ray palzy.

3. The Agenda

4. Terminate opposing political views.

5. Triple diversity in staff based on quota system instead of qualifications.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

Reviews are a tool to evaluate how good a game is, if we should invest time playing it.

I'm not sure how we ended with the situation we are in, a lot of people don't trust the reviewers anymore to assess how interesting a game is, either from a story or often even less from a mechanical point of view, to make it worse there is now a politically bent often added to them (not to say that being shocking for the sake of it makes sense, haluscinating problems where there is none places you in the same camp as the classic conspiracy theorists).

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

I value reviews more for the objective details (story length, amount of content in general, performance, controls, features, etc) more so than just a number rating and whether someone liked it or not

 

[wzy]

A review of imo is taking a game and grading it based on aspects of the game.

A review to modern gaming media is about trashing games that don't meet the 5 T's:

1. lgbT

2. Terminal Blu Ray palzy.

3. The Agenda

4. Terminate opposing political views.

5. Triple diversity in staff based on quota system instead of qualifications.

A lot of those seem like the same T

 

[Gamernyc78]

Reviews are supposed to be a base point to collect some info about the game before buying, as well states the good and the bad points the game has(which varies from viewer to viewer).

But nowadays its just utterly, silly and mediocre motives attached to them. Not to mention the famous "my opinion" as a shield.

Wish I could get paid to write shit about a game.

Must be the easiest job in the world.

This!! Although a review is a subjective opinion most of the time it should try to be as neutral and objective as possible which doesn't happen. If a reviewer has set metrics and uses those metrics consistently, reviews become very informative but when they add too much opinion, politics and stray away from those metrics arbitrarily depending on the game, what system its on or developer, it becomes disgenous/trash. That is why it is good to look at the messenger and view reviews from reviewers that usually agree with your tastes.

 

[MC Safety]

Wish I could get paid to write shit about a game.

Must be the easiest job in the world.

It's a great job, but it's not always easy. Writing and editing is a skill, and you have to work hard at it.

You could write about games if you set your mind to it. A lot of people compete for open positions, so you have to be persistent as well as talented.

 

[ph33rknot]

i dont and never really have I used it as a guide to what i like

 

[sadaiyappan]

I think some games shouldn't be time wasted playing and some games are stupidly designed. Even I can tell the game is designed stupidly and they should have made it differently.

 

[Tupinambis_WOT]

Reviews are still useful for telling me when a game is fucking broken. Managed to weasel my way out of my Aliens Colonial Marines preorder because of some nasty early reviews.

 

[ZywyPL]

Reviews were a thing back in the barely-to-no internet times, where only the journalists get to see a game before it was shipped, and share their opinion on it.. And the press/media were totally different back then compared to what it is now.. But today? Reviews are completely meaningless, because I can witness the games by myself on YT, Twitch etc. and I can make my own judgement whether I like what I see or not. Especially given the press is super biased nowadays, forced unnecessary politics etc., which for example, weren't present back in the RE5 days, where the game was called racist because you were killing black zombies (black people in Africa, who would have guessed?), which now would be most likely considered as a diverse, politically correct, anti-white supremacy game. Like those factors decide whether I have fun with the game or not to begin with... So yeah, I didn't read/watch a single review in about two decades, the only glimpse of reviews I get is here on Neogaf and the thread titles, and that's more than enough.

 

[nikolino840]

I read reviews Just for general informations...i don't care of the score

It's hard to find An impartial judgment...and sometimes the written review does'nt match with the Number...

I have readed with a game .. mediocre story .. mediocre almost all characters... Mediocre AI ..
Vote... 9+... What?

 

[bellome]

Today's reviews are just an instrument to manipulate potential buyers (we the gamers)

After over 35 years of gaming i don't care anymore about reviews, i can judge myself if a game is worth buying or not.

 

[Hellblueboy]

A good review can be useful, it's provide information needed for consumers.
You may argue that consumers could just watch some playthrough online, but a good review present concise and useful information in one package.

 

[Virex]

I don't give a shit about reviews. Why let other people decide for you what you buy, play and enjoy.

 

[ROMhack]

I read reviews because I want to hear thoughtful considerations of the product. I don't want to know how 'good' or 'bad' something is because I don't see games that way; I fully expect a subjective criteria of judgement and much prefer when the reviewer is able to explain any reaction they had. From that I'll be able to tell if it sounds like something I'd like.

The problem I have with reviews is that they mostly don't do this. Writers often come across as scared of rocking the boat in case people comment negatively. Putting my thinking cap on, I suspect the recent rise of politicising games comes from wanting to make an appeal to authority as it's harder to attack group ideology over personal thoughts.

Personally I wish we'd go back to a time where reviewers and readers alike actually read reviews and not just the score were open to more personal takes. Websites like Giant Bomb, Rock Paper Shotgun, Destructoid, etc were built on this and what they do now is but a mere husk of the glory days.

 

[killatopak]

Confirmation bias.