IGN only gave it an 8.5? WTF!?

This is probably going to turn out to be quite a long post, so for those who have a tendency to think to themselves "God, Cat Dog... just ask a question so I can bump up my post-count some more!", here's the tl;dr question: Should you trust game reviews? Especially with regard to the marketing campaigns put behind 'good' games? I'd appreciate it if people read what prompted me to ask this question, but I can't force you, so... meh.

-~-~-~

A few weeks ago, pop-culture website The A.V. Club reviewed Uncharted 3 for the PS3 and gave it a 'C'-grade (on an A-F scale, so it was deemed 'not great'; you can read the review here). That, in turn, prompted many angry responses on internet comment sites: some went as far as to suspect the reviewer was a shill for Microsoft for vocalizing his views so forthright. Having not played any of the Uncharted series, I can't comment upon the points raised in the individual review in question, but the response seems, from an outsider's perspective, strangely passionate, given that none of the commenters had played the game at the time of writing.

I brushed this under the rug for a week or so, but when listening to a podcast today that discusses this very review (from the same website), it got me thinking a bit about game reviewing. The podcast segment in question opens with the following statement:

Video game reviews can be surprisingly controversial: even more so than film or music. Video game publishers have a reputation for punishing media for giving bad reviews, and heavily promoted games are expected to get good reviews.

The discussion then moves on to the subject of promotion and reviews. A heavily-promoted summer blockbuster film (like, say, Transformers) is not expected to get great - or even good - reviews from film critics; something like a new Zelda game, on the other hand, is expected not only to sell like hotcakes but get amazing reviews from places like IGN and GameSpot. It seems like much more pressure is placed upon the shoulders of video game reviewers to write positive things about a expensive games and games with large marketing budgets or risk losing reviewing privileges of future games by the same publishers and studios. (For example, 'punishment' could include not being sent review copies, un-invitations to things like E3 events etc.)

All of this leads me to ask, can one really trust gaming reviews of high-profile games if there's such pressure on reviewers to 'inflate' their positive opinion to keep being able to do what they do? Looking at high-profile titles, there does seem to be a relative unanimity as to the level of respect that titles get; there seems to be much less dissent in the video game world, and a desire among readers to have a sense of validation in their gaming choices. Indeed, film and music reviewers, if anything, are too harsh in their reviews; this is either an elitist belief that old music/movies are supremely better than the new, or just a desire to tear into stuff they have no strong feelings for. It's exceedingly rare, for example, to see a film review with 100% on Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic or something, and yet high-profile video games can often receive 9.0+ on an occasion.

Which links me back to the question originally posited: Should you trust game reviews? Especially with regard to the marketing campaigns put behind 'good' games? (If you've read all the way down to here, thanks... I hope I haven't bored you silly!)

I often ignore game review magazines and websites because of how biased (and often negative) they are, usually, they just bash the game because of the way it looks, or what genre the game is, WITHOUT EVEN PLAYING IT!!! And First-Person Shooters (or anything with an M rating) are always glorified and praised and given high ratings, no matter how bad they are, they just always praise them.

This is how almost ALL the reviews for Pokemon Black and White were in America, in Japan, the games got solid and positive reviews by all the Japanese gaming magazines, being the first Pokemon games to get 40/40 by Famitsu, in America, however, Black and White got negative reviews from all the gaming magazines and websites, all of them (except Nintendo Power) gave the games negative (and often hateful) reviews because "THE PLOT WAS THE SAME!" or "THE POKEMONS WERE UGLY!", or my personal favorite "IT WASN'T GENERATION 1, SO IT SUCKS LOLOLOL!!!1!" (obvious "old-school Pokemon" fans there), Nintendo Power was the ONLY game review magazine that gave a positive review for the games, giving the games a 9.5 (if I remember right) and even having a featured article in one issue, giving fans ideas on what to expect from the then coming new Pokemon games.

So yeah, this is why I often dislike game reviews, because of how stereotypical they are towards certain genres, and how spiteful they are towards other genres, with that kind of attitude, it makes people not want to buy that game at all, no matter how good or bad the game is.

Masterge77 said:

I often ignore game review magazines and websites because of how biased (and often negative) they are, usually, they just bash the game because of the way it looks, or what genre the game is, WITHOUT EVEN PLAYING IT!!! And First-Person Shooters (or anything with an M rating) are always glorified and praised and given high ratings, no matter how bad they are, they just always praise them.

This is how almost ALL the reviews for Pokemon Black and White were in America, in Japan, the games got solid and positive reviews by all the Japanese gaming magazines, being the first Pokemon games to get 40/40 by Famitsu, in America, however, Black and White got negative reviews from all the gaming magazines and websites, all of them (except Nintendo Power) gave the games negative (and often hateful) reviews because "THE PLOT WAS THE SAME!" or "THE POKEMONS WERE UGLY!", or my personal favorite "IT WASN'T GENERATION 1, SO IT SUCKS LOLOLOL!!!1!" (obvious "old-school Pokemon" fans there), Nintendo Power was the ONLY game review magazine that gave a positive review for the games, giving the games a 9.5 (if I remember right) and even having a featured article in one issue, giving fans ideas on what to expect from the then coming new Pokemon games.

So yeah, this is why I often dislike game reviews, because of how stereotypical they are towards certain genres, and how spiteful they are towards other genres, with that kind of attitude, it makes people not want to buy that game at all, no matter how good or bad the game is.

Click to expand...

You, sir, have never read Game Informer. Gave both Black & White and HGSS 8/10. Rates down annual release games if they don't improve enough. Doesn't usually score anything below a 4, though. Despite covering its development for months, it gave Duke Nukem Forever a lower score than one would think they would based on the coverage they gave it, and Duke Nukem Forever is not the only game that's gotten a lower score that they've covered extensively.

Although there are aspects of it where it is a corporate shill for GameStop, it does features on products of other retailers, often with favorable reviews.



As you can see from what I have just said about GameInformer, I have seen evidences of some reviewers being pretty unbiased. Though certain individual reviewers do go quite a bit too far in bashing some actually good series just to get more views *coughzeropunctuationcough*. I typically read the entirety of each printed review in GameInformer Magazine to get the full story on it.

I only look at reviews when I'm absolutely, 100% not sure if it's good or not, and, at the same time, I still care.

So, yeah. Just Sonic games.

I don't trust other people's opinions because I can think of a few games that have gotten high ratings that i think are complete crap and games that get bad to mediocre reviews that are actually quite good. Personally I think it just comes down to the gamer and the mood of the gamer at the time.

The reviews do actually influence me to a certain extent. If some magazine/ website actually posts a good review, I tend to give the review a look, looking at the good and bad points. I usually only look at Gamespot scores, since that's the site I've been visiting since I was a kid. I also check out Metacritic quite a bit, cause, well, it has an aggregate score. I usually pick up games that I feel are good; based on coverage, showcase, often hype, etc. As for trusting... can't say for sure. I feel that to an extent, some reviews ARE biased, because they're generally backed up by huge companies. But that's just my 2 cents. ='D

I think the real problem is score inflation. An average game should be a 50, not a 70. Most reviews themselves are reasonable enough, in my opinion.

I read reviews but never base anything on them. If the game sounds and looks fun but the review says it sbad I will still buy it anyway. These game reviewers don't know what I like anyway, they are giving their opinion on the game.

I usually look on Wikipedia, and see all of the average review scores.

BioShock 2

Aggregate scores

GameRankings 87.87%[53]
Metacritic 88%[54]

Review scores

1UP.com B+[55]
Computer and Video Games 9.0[56]
Edge 8/10[57]
Eurogamer 8/10[58]
Famitsu 37/40
Game Informer 8.25/10
GamePro [59]
GameSpot 8.5/10
GameSpy [60]
GamesRadar 10/10
GameTrailers 8.8/10[61]
IGN 9.1/10[62]
Official Xbox Magazine 9.5/10
PSM3 93%

Click to expand...

Such as that, and will usually make a decision based on an average. I feel you can't trust just one source. They may have a bias, be retarded, or overhype the way a game feels.

I think of reviews as opinions on games, and I don't always agree with them. For instance, there are some games that receive horrible or low reviews, even though the game is not that bad. Game ratings and reviews don't necessarily decide whether or not I end up buying that specific game or not, and game ratings don't make a game good either. You can have a game rated 9.5 or 10 and be decent to play, but not that great, and the opposite is true. You can have a game rated 7/10 and still be a great game to play. (EX Game Informer's review of Medal of Honor 2010) Whenever I buy a game, I tend to look at review to get an idea of what that game is like, and if it suits me or not. Then i'll check gameplay videos on youtube, then eventually try the game myself, and if I like it, I end up buying it.

I do not pay attention to reviews at all. If I'm really looking forward to a game, I kind of retreat into my own personal bubble about a month or two before the game comes out anyway and ignore any media about it so that I can play with sort of a pure slate. It mostly just annoys me when someone starts talking about review scores when I am in said bubble because... I'm getting the game anyway; I probably already have it pre-ordered. Who cares?

Reviews are just kind of pointless now. The scores seem to be completely arbitrary--I agree with twocows that 5/10 should be an average game and the artificially inflated stuff where 70% is an okay game doesn't make any sense. Not only that but it's so difficult to tell when a reviewer actually thinks a game is good and when a company is just slipping him/her money under the table.

I also see a lot of friends reading reviews and then being disappointed in games they haven't even played yet and were really looking forward to. :( I feel that if you're really interested in a game, you should play it yourself. That's why I much prefer the idea of releasing demos than sending out a bunch of review copies. Let everyone else play a bit of the game and decide for themselves whether it's their thing or not.