Which one you like more to take a look at games...

[43st]

Bluesnews (since Quake!) and RockPaperShotgun mostly. Eurogamer is also good.

 

[GullyFoyle]

2nding Blues News

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

If I look at an "official review site" (which is on rare occasions because they are all paid shills for their advertisers), I will look at GameSpot because I like the layout of their reviews better, and I like reading the summaries of the Good and the Bad if I'm glancing at a game that I only have slight interest in.

IGN has been trash to me since their McGriddles fiasco years ago. You know, when their entire game site was covered from top to bottom in McGriddles ads.

 

[Martimus]

I take a look at Firingsquad, or take a look in the forums here.

I don't trust any other site to review a game.

 

[BladeVenom]

The absolute best for game reviews is Zero Punctuation.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
The absolute best for game reviews is Zero Punctuation.

Agreed there's usually like 1 line in each episdoe where he just straight up says how good the game is. The rest of the review is all the bad crap paid shills won't tell you about on other sites. That and it's hillarious.

 

[Beev]

I enjoyed EGM in it's magazine form back when I was in middle/high school. So I use 1UP. I agree with them often on their reviews.

 

[jonks]

metacritic for the general critical impression, gamespot for the in-depth review/preview. Claims they bow to advertisers are overinflated, they consistently flunk games that deserve to be flunked. Even when jeff G got shitcanned for complaining about advertiser input into the Kane & Lynch review, the edits his superiors decided on only changed a few small word choices, the score he gave the game remained the same. I also like how they generally underscore in comparison to other mainstream sites who tend to overscore. I tried Giantbomb but having played a good number of the games they review, we just don't see eye to eye.

And though they don't do reviews, I read the penny arcade blog, and when tycho recommends a game, it's usually worth checking out. Additionally, PA only runs ads for games they personally approve as good games.

 

[Sureshot324]

I kinda stopped going to gamespot after this happened. I find the really big sites will never give a bad review to a heavily hyped game.

1up is the most honest review site imo. They've given quite a few bad reviews to what were supposed to be AAA titles. Gametrailers is decent as well.

 

[gizbug]

Originally posted by: videogames101
Metacritic

This shouldn't even be a question.

/thread

Metacritic for scores.
I do like IGN, as they have VIDEO reviews and VIDEO previews. If anyone has another site that offers this, I would surely make a switch from IGN.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
I find the really big sites will never give a bad review to a heavily hyped game.

I hear this a lot but do you have an example?

 

[crownjules]

I don't read review sites. I'll watch gameplay videos on Gametrailers and play the demos for any games I'm interested in. Word of mouth from friends is the other big factor that goes into what games I buy.

For the 360, Gamefly all the way. I've saved myself from buying many games that in the past I'd have dropped $60 on only to play for a handful of hours.

 

[T9D]

...

 

[darkxshade]

I go to AT PC gaming forums.

 

[Chaotic42]

The only reviewer I trust is Yahtzee.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
I kinda stopped going to gamespot after this happened. I find the really big sites will never give a bad review to a heavily hyped game.

1up is the most honest review site imo. They've given quite a few bad reviews to what were supposed to be AAA titles. Gametrailers is decent as well.

text
text

 

[Zenoth]

I usually take a look at Metacritic if I do take a look at a game before buying it. I also look at GameSpot sometimes, but that's rare, although generally speaking I do like them. I was an avid IGN reader a couple of years ago mostly when my PC was only good enough for web-browsing and I was still mostly a console gamer (roughly that's during the Dreamcast and PS2 days), but ever since a few years they've become more of a multi-entertainment review and preview web-site than anything related to gaming, although gaming is still a big part for them, I just have the feeling that they don't seem to make the good reviews and previews they used to make before, or maybe I can't remember the bad ones they did make before. I don't "hate" IGN though, I just don't have any interest about them but I occasionally watch their video reviews.

But, generally speaking I look at Metacritic and go on various discussion forums and read about the general consensus from Mr. Joe everyone, that's sufficient enough for me, and very often more detailed in description than any "professional" reviews.

 

[GaryJohnson]

Originally posted by: 43st
Bluesnews (since Quake!) and RockPaperShotgun mostly. Eurogamer is also good.

A 2nd for RockPaperShotgun.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Gametrailers.com for great video reviews.
Eurogamer.net for 'regular' reviews. They are not easy with ratings, tend to not be easily impressed but aren't unfair either. Even a 7/10 on Eurogamer.net is generally a 'you will definitely enjoy it' as long as it's your genre.

 

[ChickenShwarma]

Gamespot and Gametrailers for me.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: v1001
They blatantly and obviously take money for better reviews.

Please name a game or games that fit this scenario. If this is as blatant as you say, there should be ample and widespread evidence of big gaming sites scoring games far out of the range of smaller or independent sites.

They definitely favor some companies over others because of revenue or relationships.

And how is that different from any industry which has reviews and advertisements? car magazines, newspapers that review movies, etc. Either a reviewer has credibility or it doesn't, it's either honest or it isn't. The fact that the publication accepts advertising doesn't imply anything nefarious when just about everyone accepts advertising.

It's simple to cast aspersions when you don't post any evidence.

 

[JoshGuru7]

If you had showed me the list of games on metacritic (http://www.metacritic.com/games/pc/scores/) but hid that they were ranked by score then I honestly wouldn't have figured it out until I got into the 300's and maybe not even then. That is why I don't bother to read reviews but instead just pick up what I think I'll enjoy and it's worked very well for me.

I do watch the Zero Punctuation reviews for humor but that's it.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: JoshGuru7
If you had showed me the list of games on metacritic (http://www.metacritic.com/games/pc/scores/) but hid that they were ranked by score then I honestly wouldn't have figured it out until I got into the 300's and maybe not even then. That is why I don't bother to read reviews but instead just pick up what I think I'll enjoy and it's worked very well for me.

Well, that list (ya need to fix the link):

1) comprises over 12 years worth of reviews, and
2) even when you hit 400 the metascore is still above 80, meaning all of those games are considered to be "really good" to "excellent", and where it lies in between will be a matter of taste. Hell, you don't sink below 75 until the mid 800s! So it'd be kind of hard to know what order those are in regardless.

If I picked up games without reading reviews I'd probably be satisfied maybe half the time instead of 90% of the time.