I want to get into a discussion with the many of you readers and have a little back and forth about what you think the current state of review sites are.

First, I would like to know your preferred site of choice that you most often check.

Then, I would like to discuss your opinions of favoritism and/or having bought reviews.

Here's my take:

I most happily read up on IGN. I've been around IGN since it -became- IGN from the time it was Snowball.

The only problem that I see is the absolute boat ride of most reviews.

What I honestly can not stand more than anything is when you have two games that score very very similar but the differences in each are so unnerving that it makes me want to pull my hair out. For instance, I recall a review that went something like "This is a sequel for fans to pick up but it loses points because it does more of the same (which isn't a bad thing)"

From what I do remember it got an 8.. but I can't recall for the life of me which game I was looking at (but, trust me, there are plenty that have this same rhyme). The problem.. is that Halo 3 came out at the same time and boasts a 9.5 and the review was very similar about "It does a lot of things the same (which isn't a bad thing)"

But, the problem I saw.. was that the story was short as hell (4 hours at the most for most casual gamers?) and they deliberately focus on the Multiplayer.. which was the same as Halo 2 except that you got the editor. Hate to say it.. but editors have been coming out for games and with games since atleast Neverwinter Nights 1 (2001?)

To clarify.. it's not that the games got the score they did.. but the mere fact that you say one game loses points for the same thing another game is doing. It's almost pleading for the next Zelda game to score a 7 because it's 'been doing the same thing for years'.. but will it? Absolutely not.

I guess the thought pops in my mind.. Does anyone else think that their review sites are getting paid off at all on the reviews/scores themselves?

I notice a lot that IGN puts up a lot of 'launch day' advertising for a lot of games and I'm sure that's not part of it.. but more and more it seems like mediocre games from very well established games are getting more hype going into it than they warrant.. and pulling off superb scores when the review itself reads that it shouldn't be over an 8.5.

Anyone else care to chime in on this?

I don't know enough to maintain that they are being paid off specifically but it wouldn't at all suprise me if sites are biased for any number of reasons (including gifts, money, advertisement, etc.) but also because reviewers are gamers. Does anyone know any gamers who are biased (i.e. fanboys, egoists, immature, etc.)?

I don't like how some reviews use the same old thing as a criticism ("lacks online multiplayer") but I can see why the scores might be different. I mean even if they do the same thing, some do it way better than before. Halo3 had features that Halo 2 did not and Halo 2 had features that Halo didn't (granted Halo is still the best of the 3). Other games that do the "same old thing" might (unlike the Halo series) not have really added any features and thus would rightfully get a lower score. That having been said, there are some games that need novelty more than others. If I am playing a single player Harvest Moon, I don't feel the pain of it not having online multiplayer as much as Ace Combat so I might be prone to penalize Ace Combat moreso than Harvest Moon for no online multiplayer. That also having been said if I were a reviewer I wouldn't really penalize for something it completely lacks but moreso for something it offers and provides poorly.

The one thing I always wonder everywhere is how much of the game they play before they score it. I have played a number of games that were ho hum at the beginning and fantastic by the end. This itself might lead to a disparity in scores.

One last thing that used to bug the hell out of me was when EGM would be unable to secure a final version of the game until a date such that the first issue that they could provide a review for the game would be after the release date of the game. This is obviously insecurity on the company and not the reviewers.

That's a fair summation of the industry for sure.

I guess I just really hate when they say that points are being dropped off a game for not having 'X' and then another game doesn't have 'X' but the score remains relatively at a level that it doesn't seem like they docked any points at all.

Granted, there's no hard grained scaling system that has a list of must haves and 'do not do's'..

But, I guess that's part of the Hype of games, too. Dragon Age and Assassin's Creed 2 are already getting a lot of praise off the previews.. it's fair to say that both of these games will do extremely well financially.. but I also notice Dragon Age (releasing Nov. 3rd) is getting a hell of a lot less spotlight than Assassin's Creed 2 (Releasing Nov. 17th?) from IGN. IGN's already decorated their main site up a -couple- of times in anticipation for the game (Assassin's Creed 2) while not having near as much to cover. By this.. I mean that Dragon Age is coming out not only on PC/Xbox/PS3 but also has 2 Novels to it's backdrop.. a flash game.. a complete revamp of the Bioware site to reflect changes going into the game for tracking/unlock/character views and DLC ready to roll..

Now, this is just a small portion of what I've personally noticed because I've recently paid more attention to Dragon Age.. but I definitely want to check out AC2 after reviews for it to see if it gets repetitive like AC1.

In the end, the point is that.. if I didn't know what Dragon Age was.. IGN doesn't really hype it up for me (even on pc.ign.com (the main PC page)) enough for a game that's releasing in 2 weeks as opposed to Assassin's Creed 2. Hell, I'll even jump in to say that aside from some videos of Left 4 Dead 2.. they really haven't gone in depth with any of the systems (IE: How the new features will work from when you trigger an alarm and have to shut off an alarm) or talk of the boss/rare infected. Granted, they have video-a-plenty.. but they really don't give it up in the articles they write.. it's -also- releasing on the 17th.

Marketing? Assuredly.. but I'm willing to bet that as long as AC2 doesn't flop it's going to score a 9+.. maybe it's because it has learned it's lesson.. maybe it's because it really -is- that good.. but they're already playing the cards to its favor if you see what I mean. Which brings me back to the games that do great but we don't hear about.. Risen got an 8.6 which is pretty damned good in my opinion when it comes to Piranha Bytes latest stuff. Again, very unknown.. but even after it gets some decent reviews (probably the highest PC score in the last few weeks if not months aside from another recently released "Borderlands") they don't throw anything toward it.

Now, I wouldn't say that IGN could single-handedly bring down a company like Piranha bytes by not having the slightest in advertising for them.. but if they had a statistic for the amount of readers.. they're certainly not helping Piranha bytes out. But, they're all the more willing to cater to already very established franchises. It almost seems backwards from how games first started.. you -wanted- to hype the Non-Mario/Non-Zelda games so that people would branch out and make new IP's so that the game market could flourish.. You already know the Mario and Zeldas are going to do great so you throw a bone to the little guy and hope he gets enough money to keep going and make better projects. Granted.. the economy is crap (especially for game making: It's selling a lot but running a lot of people out of $$ in the development process) but hasn't anyone noticed for the past probably 4-5 months that nothing remotely 'anticipated' has approached the PC? Maybe it's just timing.. but I think it's all factors .. not to say I believe it's a conspiracy theory or anything.. just a bit of ignorance that some people may not see what it does in the long term.

Sorry for the facerollingly long post guys.. bear with me as I rant.. lol.. hopefully it's coherent

P.S. Risen even got the Editor's Choice for the month of Release from IGN.. Now, if you've heard about it and IGN was what lead you to it.. smite me a little.. but I really think it's gone relatively unheard.

Well, there's probably at least 3 things wrong with reviews:
1) The scoring system. Scales of 1-5 and 1-10 are rigid and the numbers alone can't tell you much. If you go by the bartle system (however outdated), they'd realize that they are scoring the wrong things as well. Not to mention that each different reviewer will have differences in how they score things.

2) The length of review time. Often times they barely play it/play it to the first boss or big event. Many review sites have dropped the ball at least once; pushing out a review that lets you know they didn't really play the game.

3) The game company/review site relationship. Usually, the review site wants to make money. In order to make money, they need to review games. In order to get games, they have to not totally trash most of their games, even if they deserve it. This represents a conflict of interest... the game companies can hurt review sites by not offering up their game, reducing their content. Then, even if the review site buys the game when it comes out, the review is up well after the release date, making the review site unreliable.

... of course, on the indie side of things, you have affiliate marketing, which can generally hurt your credibility, but I suppose if you are still honest, it might not be so bad.

So, which review sites do you guys frequent most often and how is their credibility with you, personally?

I frequent IGN, and they're pretty credible with me. Sure, they'll drop the ball every once in a while, but I wouldn't have played some games had they not been reviewed well.

I go to Nintendo Life, more to see what's new on the Virtual Console and WiiWare, but I like reading the reviews for entertainment value. The reviews have user comments right below, discussing what they think of the game and the review, itself. What's important to remember is that each reviewer has their own tastes, and this has to be pointed out frequently in those comments. They're also sure to point out that it should not be only by the reviewer's score that one should decide whether a game is good or not. At the same time, though, it's nice that the reviewers themselves take part in those conversations.

www.noobtoob.com



"You can't spell 'ignorant' without IGN."

That's generally how I feel about ALL huge name reviewers. I really like sticking with the little guys. Not neccessarily just random guys on Youtube. But decently organized (and most importantly) unpaid guys. I want these guys to be able to look at a brand new game and, if need be, say it absolutely sucked ass. IGN or any other company won't do that... because they are usually sponsored by said gaming company. I'm not saying that the gaming company is paying them to say that their game is good, but I do think that if they shat on a game hard enough, they would stop paying for them to review their games.

The guys that I just reffered are exactly that. And I will trust their oppinion over anyone else. They even preferred WET over Devil May Cry 4. But they'll even state that it's just how they felt, and they could very much be wrong. But what I like about them is that they will sh*t all over a game if it's desirving of it. They don't rate on 1 to 10. They just simply tell you if they think the game is worth experiencing or not, and if it's worth a buy or a rental. And that's all it should really be, honestly.

I like this discussion going much better than I had anticipated.

The reason I wanted to go into this is because I'm happily looking for more review sites and exploring them.