Bugs on 15/12/2009 at 14:54
So, anyone got any recommendations?
I used to use GameSpy, but got annoyed after they re-did their website, they seemed to stop reviewing most games.
Then I started using IGN (I think they form part of the same network?), but they've just nerfed it recently for me, as it now seems impossible to see the non-UK reviews, but they only review about 10% of the games for the UK version.
So, I'm looking for something new. I'm playing 360 mostly, so that's where my focus would be, but want a good review site, not too hyped. I like to check up on pretty much all the new games coming out. IGN used to review the arcade games on 360 too, which was nice...
Vic Vega on 15/12/2009 at 14:58
To be honest, it's hard to find a good review site, most of them give so-called blockbusters, aka overrated crap like Halo a straight 9. So I suggest you go to Gametrailers.com. That site has video reviews. So basically you just see the whole thing for yourself and while you may or may not agree with the reviewer, seeing it with your own eyes is the best way of figuring out for yourself if you'll like the title or not.
David on 15/12/2009 at 15:06
I like (
http://www.eurogamer.net/) Eurogamer. They seem to be pretty good, and they're tastes and opinions on games seem to mirror my own.
CCCToad on 15/12/2009 at 15:08
Its not a "review" site, but I recommend Kotaku. They are a smaller site, and seem to be largely free of direct influence by publishers. Also, they do not award a numerical score, something that I believe greatly improves the quality.
I also like Destructoid. They're a similiar site, but do keep an archive of reviews. What makes them different is that they actually do use the entirety of the 1-10 scale. For example, Assassin's Creed 2, a game they felt was mediocre, got a 4.5 instead of the 7 most sites would give a mediocre game.
Ostriig on 15/12/2009 at 18:56
Quote Posted by CCCToad
They are a smaller site, and seem to be largely free of direct influence by publishers.
They're also kind of shit, too easily enthused, and in dire need of a spellchecker. On the bright side, they're a very good source for news, though, they're very quick to pick up on it.
I'll second Eurogamer's and GT's reviews, though. GT in particular I used to hit up more often for their reviews, even though sometimes they did let some shit slide. Eurogamer's been more of an occasional stop for me, but I've come to have a pretty good impression of their reviews. But, really, my first stop to look for impressions on a game is TTLG - once you learn to translate cubic metres of mouth foam into a numeric score, this place really makes it work.
TheOutrider on 15/12/2009 at 19:59
Personally I nowadays mostly go with metacritic. Weighted average ratings over multiple publications? Yes please! They also have snippets/summaries of reviews, so it's easy to get a general drift of what reviewers thought was right and wrong about the game.
That aside, workmates have recommended Giant Bomb, which was set up by Jeff Gerstmann after being laid off by Gamespot (let's not get into why and how discussions please).
[edit] Destructoid have a tendency to be brutally honest in their reviews, and I too approve of actually using the full 1-10 scale. However they seem to be fairly polarised in their opinions and thus I've found myself disagreeing with their editors more often than with other sites. Plus they occasionally trigger the porn rule on commercial web filter software (god knows why), so if you want access at work that might be a factor. [/edit]
Vic Vega on 15/12/2009 at 20:15
I'd actually like to point out a few things about good old useless fart Jeff Gerstmann. I am rather surprised someone still reads his crap.
He's the prime example of what's wrong with reviews - most reviewers give titles like Metal Gear Solid, Halo, Gears of War, etc no less than a 9, because they fear that a lot of fanboys would be pissed otherwise and might stop visiting their web sites. But when it comes to less popular titles, they go hard on them, nitpicking as much as they can. Until finally that review tactic backfired, in Gertsmann's case with the Kane And Lynch review. I agree that K&L wasn't a great game, but his complaints were beyond ridiculous. Good to see he lost his job over it.
bukary on 15/12/2009 at 20:18
Quote Posted by David
I like (
http://www.eurogamer.net/) Eurogamer. They seem to be pretty good, and they're tastes and opinions on games seem to mirror my own.
Stalker there: 8/10. Modern Warfare 2 there: 9/10. Machinarium: 8/10. Fallout 3: 10/10.
Hmmm.... Not exactly what I think about these games. Especially MW2 score is too high.
Vic Vega on 15/12/2009 at 20:19
This is so sad.
Malleus on 15/12/2009 at 20:54
Quote Posted by bukary
Especially MW2 score is too high.
And it's a review of the console versions. Even Gamespot did a separate review for the PC version, which ultimately got a lower score. It was still too high though. :) Anyway Eurogamer convinced me with their Risen and Cryostasis scores - it's the
last site I'd check for reviews.
EDIT: Though in their defense, they at least posted a review of The Void, even though the reviewer didn't have a clue.
