Here’s an overheard quote that is the topic of the day: Is it mere egotism and a massive superiority complex that generates the quote, or is it legitimate?
I read reviews all the time. What I don't do is base my subjective stance on what others say. My opinion from my own experience and no one else's. More people should take that stance, I think.
There's certain reviewers' opinions I respect (Jeff Gerstmann springs to mind), and there's certain ones that have proven time and time again that they have no taste in games (some of the Gamespot guys spring to mind). So I tend to listen to those reviewers I respect, and base my decision of that as well as the wealth of videos that are now available.
It's totally fair to respect reviews that you read. Just be sure to consider that someday their stance on something, be it a game or some sort of social industry issue, may actually differ from yours. ;)
Real gamers come here and cry about consoles they will never own and use illogical crap to say who won E3.... Then try shove it down your throat..... Real people play the games.....
Real gamers believe there is a winner and loser at E3 rather than just looking at it as sneak peaks and reveals of future games to be excited for.
Yes Exactly! you have a bunch of children yelling about a game like watch dogs, saying it sucks, and they have never played it! they somehow think other people's opinions can substitute for theirs.
I suppose it depends on the person who says that they don't care for reviews. The quote up top is just plain ignorant, though. REAL games don't read reviews? Are you kidding me? Real gamers would do their research on games before making a purchase. That includes seeing gameplay, trailers, interviews, and reviews. It's all to ensure that they are making the right decision when purchasing a game. Also, real gamers wouldn't let some new stigma tell them what they are or aren't. If you game on computers, consoles, or handhelds consistently with games you decide to purchase based on your interest and likes, then you are a real gamer.
I think the definition of "real gamer" is crazy subjective, which makes this question tough. :)
I don't think it is. "Gamer" is merely someone who plays video games as a hobby, nothing more and nothing less. The kind of game is irrelevant. If you play games merely as a way to pass time rather than as a hobby, that's how you know you're not a gamer.
I read reviews all the time but it's not the be all end all when it comes to determining if I buy a game or not. Recent examples are Ryse and Infamous Second Son. Ryse had mediocre reviews but I thought it looked interesting so I bought it and enjoyed it a lot. I will buy the sequel if one is ever announced. Many people were saying that Infamous Second Son took several steps back from previous Infamous titles but I still bought it and enjoyed that game as well. I'm also going to purchase the dlc that's releasing later this year.
Really if I am interested in something enough I will read reviews, look at gameplay videos, read previews, and than usually make a decision. It's hard to just look at reviews when games like COD which usually get high scores and I am not really interested in those games.
Yes they do read reviews and so do I. I also own 300 games.
There is no such thing as a "real gamer". I hate it when people try to define what makes someone a gamer. What an arrogant trashy presumptuous premise.
I agree. Except for cell phone/Facebook gamers. They shouldn't count.
Good thing this wasn't a game because I would've given it a crappy review lol. On a sidenote however, I read reviews as well especially for games I end up playing because I like to see if any of the criticisms placed in the article accurately show up during my own experience. That being said, a negative review won't sway me from buying a game I'm genuinely interested in, unless of course the reason given has a significant impact on how the game plays out. (I've yet to experience this type of situation though lol)
I hardly will ever read or watch a review. I always go by strictly gut feelings. Yet when I do look at them or watch them. I read or pay attention to bugs or glitches I should be aware of.
I used to rely way more on reviews as a kid with limited income and wanting to buy full price games, so reviews did help guide my purchase. These days reviews mean a lot less to me. A metacritic score is useful for telling if the game is bad, but I don't find reviews helpful when choosing between highly scored games. I think companies' marketing is playing a bigger role in getting to know game without relying on journalist's reviews and previews. That said, getting opinions from the critics is useful when it's ambigious. For example, how do I know if Tropico 5 is actually at all different from 4, which was barely different from 3? Sequels often sell games without needing reviews though. I didn't read a review for Skyrim. It'd have take many reviwers panning it in unison for reviews to have meaning. I think taking personal interest in developers is a bigger thing now. I don't read reviews for valve games either.
Hardly ever reading reviews these days. May glance at the score. Can't remember the last time I based a purchase decision on a review.
They do. They just don't make their decision solely based on the frequently unbalanced- and thus unreliable- views expressed in reviews.
I think Reviews are a good starting point. If your on the fence and a games has a 40 on metacritic that can be quite helpful. Games are expensive so you want to make an informed decision.
I read unbiased reviews for products I'm sure on so I know the strengths and weakness of the game. I'll read reviews for games I'm excited for after I play to see what others thought but still only unbiased , opinion free reviews so I get a truthful review.
F***ing LOL And I suppose real movie watchers don't read reviews of movies? Real vacationers don't read reviews of resorts?
I know what you're saying, but those kinds of reviews definitely don't fit the same environment of today's gaming reviews. There's a reason why game reviews are such a controversial topic these days.
Man, you are making odd comparisons today. :P
There's nothing odd about those comparisons. Calling someone who enjoys something "not a real [person who enjoys that thing]" for reading reviews for something is stupid no matter what that something is.
I think in context the message was about people who use reviews to create their own opinions. And with that, I think citing movie reviews is weird because critically bad movies have done well at the box office before. It's why Michael Bay still has a job. :P
"And with that, I think citing movie reviews is weird because critically bad movies have done well at the box office before" And Duke Nukem sold over a million copies.
Well that's news to me lol. I found DNF to be fairly archaic and stiff, but otherwise a working game. I completely understood why people despised it though. The point is reviews don't always influence the success of a product. Not everyone necessarily reads reviews to determine whether or not to buy a game. If games weren't so expensive, people would probably make that decision more often.
They read them just for the lols, but they dont care about them.
I personally think the best game reviews come from those random YouTube users who used their hard earned cash to buy the games. I particularly like the longer ones that go in depth and tell what to expect. Far too many bought out reviewers and sites for me to trust any of them.
It makes no difference whatsoever that critics get their games for free. None. The myth that critics and sources are "bought out" REALLY needs to stop. It's hugely insulting to those who actually work in the industry.
Review sites makes their money on ad revenue mainly ad pertaining to games. The more money a particular site receives from a company the less likely that companies game receives a low score. There are numerous examples proving that bought reviews are not myths and happen all the time. Cod games(in particular mw3 and ghosts) continuously receiving high scores from site that they are advertised on despite how mediocre they are. The Jeff Gerstmann/Gamespot scandal and so many more that I care not list them all. Also with the amount of power these "journalists" to throw trash games and companies you can understand if I don't care about offending them. Even now with Nintendo doing damn near everything right this past E3, some sites will have you think they don't exist simply because they didn't have a traditional press conference to kiss the ass of the same media that did everything in their power to bury them for 2 years straight.
Exaggeration and lies. Know how long I've been reviewing games in this industry? 16 years. 4 different websites. Know how many times I was told to alter a review score because the site was receiving ad money from a company? Zero. This doesn't happen. Now, the GameStop/Gerstmann thing was a definite fiasco but of course, any time something like that happens, gamers choose to treat it as the rule and not the exception. 99% of all critics in this industry get paid next to nothing for their work. Ads are from a million different vendors and often have nothing whatsoever to do with games. I'm tired of outsiders thinking they know everything there is to know about reviewers when it's a thankless job that most gamers, despite what they think, would NOT want. As for Nintendo, that's crap. Their first-party games pull down the highest scores I've ever seen, and they continue to do so.
I don't remember the last time I read a review.
Some but not all gamers.
I read MANY reviews, and if 90% of those reviews say a game is crap, well, the game's probably crap.
Saying a game is crap tells me nothing. I want to know why you feel it's crap. If you tell me the frame rate drops are every 2 mins and the gets too slow to be playable, I might consider your opinion and look to see if other have that same experience. If you tell me a hack and slash game has repetitive gameplay, I am going to wonder if this is your first hack and slash game and why were you picked to do the review. I don't know how many time I read reviews, where the review started by saying: "I have never been a fan of these types of games". I actually appreciate that, because I know not to read any further. I really don't care for their opinions, I read for technical issues, length of game, long cut scenes that can't be skipped, how much hand holding vs freedom...
I watch video reviews, mainly for their praises and criticisms while showing evidence of it in the game, but then I skip the number as it doesnt mean jack.
I read them when I'm bored but like everyone else said I don't my bade my purchases on reviews.
I don't really read reviews anymore because they spoil some of the best parts of a game before you can delve into it yourself. I generally just look at the scores of several reviews to find out what the general consensus is before I play the game. I usually only pre-order games when I am familiar with the franchise or developer or if I've watched some gameplay demos and feel like it warrants a purchase no matter what. As games evolve and as your tastes progress, I personally have found that many "big" games that have score highly with reviewers were not my cup of tea. So, reviews tend to increasingly be less and less useful. Even when there is a reviewer that I trust, I tend to disagree with them as much as I agree. That is why I encourage gamers to try new games every once and a while because you never know a game that was critically panned, but you found to be enjoyable.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.