TitanReviews writes: Whose reviews are more worth your trust when you decide what games to buy? Who actually deserves that trust? We'll break down the factors and let you decide.
Of course they are. No devs or pubs paying them off for higher scores.. It's all truth all the time.
Definitely aren't. They're more desperately after hits and they don't have to try to be as consistent and as objective as possible, so we get more purely personal opinions and often good scores for bad games. GO TO METACRITIC.COM or GAMERANKINGS.COM Meta even acknowledges that the average scores of games aren't even near 50, so their "yellow zone" starts at 70, whereas in movies, it starts at 60.
You make some valid points, and I hope movements was being hyperbolic when saying "It's all truth all the time". IMO, the answer must lie somewhere in the middle. Usually does.
yes,in my opinion because the lack of bribe money.
Yeah, I always take a point off when major sites review a really big game. Like when Dragon Age 2 got a few 8's, I counted them as 7's cause the major sites are afraid to roast a major title (for the most part).
This sounds to me like a smart rule in general, but there are surely exceptions, as well.
When The Escapist gave Dragon Age 2 a perfect 10, that removed them from my list of credible review sites. Not because I personally considers Dragon Age 2 to be average, but rather that the second a game gets a perfect score (regardless of serious flaws), warning bells should sound.
Sure, I think that's a fair statement in general. That doesn't mean that reviews and reviewers working for large sites are necessarily bad, you just have to deal with the motives at work there. Then again, there are motives that can negatively affect the quality of content at small sites, as well. On the one hand, you have big-time reviewers that haven't paid for content or hardware and want to keep it that way, and then you have the smaller sites that desperately want traffic. All this being said, it is important to remember that all reviews and sites have bias. It's part of being human. I prefer the small sites because I find them more innovative, focused, and fun (in general). The generality that they tend to have less bias than larger sites is just a bonus :-)
Most definitely! I generally avoid the reviews from major sites, and rather base my purchasing decision on the countless number of smaller sites. That's not to say that all smaller sites are trustworthy, but I've noticed their reviews are a lot more meaningful than the IGNs of this world. It boils down to a simple realisation, "When reviewers are wined and dined by Developers (or Publishers), can we truly accept their reviews as being unbiased?" or for that matter, if a review site is dependent on the latest news or even early copies of a game from a distributor, how eager will they be to call an average game a "5" or the industry-standard of "7"?
i totally agree with the article
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.