Game Informer reviews losing credibility?

[quote name='Rozz']A review is simply supposed to be your opinion. What's the point of changing around scores or whatever just because you think someone else "might not agree with it"? It's supposed to be your take on the game, that's why it's your review.

If I were to review Street Fighter IV and give it an 8 out of 10 but then think to myself "Well, most people prefer shooters over fighters, so I'll give it a 5", then the review would be absolutely pointless.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but you are simply taking it a step beyond the scope of the review. What if the reviewer thought it was a kiddy game, and he thinks a lot of his readers would think its a kiddy game, too? Then by your logic he should give it an artificially high score because a small segment of his reading population would like the game, when they could just as easily read the review, see what he didn't like, and dismiss the review as not applying to them. Remember, the number score isn't the most important part of a review, its what is said within the text that matters.
 
I disagree with the notion that a review is supposed to be based solely on a person's opinion of a game. I forgot to mention that I also refer to the gametrailers.com reviews. I like the way that they stay very objective and show why the game is reviewed the way it's reviewed. I get the impression that they are very honest about the score, and the score generally goes along with what was said in the commentary. I also like how they take 4 or 5 different aspects of a game and rate them separately.

Other reviews generally have a slant, and sometimes certain blogs have certain reviewers do a review of a game they don't like personally, and you get a very skewed score. For example, I think the guy Jon Holmes from Destructoid is a big Wii person, so he will usually rate Wii games favorably.

I think at that there is a point where a reviewer gets too far one way or another and their reviews are pretty much worthless (unless your tastes are exactly like theirs).

Anyway, you shouldn't care about review scores, unless you have no idea about the game. If a game looks interesting, at least rent it and be your own judge--everyone is different.
 
[quote name='help1']Yes, but you are simply taking it a step beyond the scope of the review. What if the reviewer thought it was a kiddy game, and he thinks a lot of his readers would think its a kiddy game, too? Then by your logic he should give it an artificially high score because a small segment of his reading population would like the game, when they could just as easily read the review, see what he didn't like, and dismiss the review as not applying to them. Remember, the number score isn't the most important part of a review, its what is said within the text that matters.[/QUOTE]

What about in the case of something like Animal Crossing? There's many people that would consider that a "kiddy" game with crappy graphics, but the game play makes up for it. In 2002 it was unlikely that such a game would be a hit in the U.S. - it had N64-era visuals, no violence, no real point. By your logic this should have received low ratings simply because, even if the reviewer loved it, others won't because bloody FPS are typically what sells. And because the reviewer thinks others won't like it, they should trash it.

Hell, even Game Informer didn't agree with what you're saying, as they later denounced what that particular editor said about the Paper Mario fiasco.
 
Game Informer was for everyone I thought.

I expect a game magazine that covers all types of games to review all types of games equally.
 
Game Informer stopped being good when they changed their review format about 10 years ago. Gone is the big overview about the game and the three reviews and in came a big review and a "second opinion" in the corner of the page.

Their reviewers also used to have personality and distinction. They used to get their own little blurbs each month, so you got to know them and how you should react to their opinions. It was an extremely effective method of telling if you would like a game. By the time I stopped reading Game Informer, I had no idea who the reviewers were except for Reiner and some other guy who were the only ones who had been there since the early days. And because I didn't know who they were, I had no reason to care what they had to say.

And Reiner used to have blue hair. Blue hair, man.
 
[quote name='Rozz']What about in the case of something like Animal Crossing? There's many people that would consider that a "kiddy" game with crappy graphics, but the game play makes up for it. In 2002 it was unlikely that such a game would be a hit in the U.S. - it had N64-era visuals, no violence, no real point. By your logic this should have received low ratings simply because, even if the reviewer loved it, others won't because bloody FPS are typically what sells. And because the reviewer thinks others won't like it, they should trash it.

Hell, even Game Informer didn't agree with what you're saying, as they later denounced what that particular editor said about the Paper Mario fiasco.[/QUOTE]

Why wouldn't they? Fans of games take review scores very seriously (for what reason, I don't understand) and that isn't a good look for any gaming magazine.
 
[quote name='Puffa469']I still like GI. I like magazines in general, I'm saddened to see them go the way of the dodo.

Review scores don't mean much to me. I read multiple reviews from different sources and make up my own mind. It's rare that I intend to buy a game and then don't due to low review scores, and vice versa.

[/QUOTE]

Same here.
 
[quote name='gargus']No reviewer has any credibility with me. Whether it be a magazine or a website because of the fault of, they review games to make money.

No reviewer reviews games in mainstream media because they love it, they do it because they get paid to do it. And with the internet paid reviewers have to work extra hard to get attention so people will keep on buying the magazine or giving the website hits and clicking on ad banners. So they skew reviews in favor of what will get them the most traffic.[/QUOTE]

Yes, all professional reviewers are biased and unqualified.

And all cops are untrustworthy and power-hungry.
Oh, and all adults are stupid.
And all people are sheep.

Did I miss any? :applause:

Sorry, but it appears you were raised by the internet. Your argument is garbage. "Nobody who gets paid to do something does it because they like it?" Yeah, because those game reviewers are raking in the cash, right? Sheesh. So, in your world, when you really enjoy doing something (like reviewing games), how do you pursue that while maintaining your credibility? Do you flip burgers during the day and maintain some cool, "indie" movie review blog that you pay for with your burger money? :roll:

If you get good at something, and you enjoy doing it, the ultimate goal is to get paid for it. The minute you get a paycheck, you don't sell your soul. That's simplistic and infantile thinking. Everyone has to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Video game reviews are nothing new. Reviews have been around for decades before the internet, and the same criticisms have been around for just as long. All reviewers have personal bias. We're human. It's part of the deal. But if we, the readers, exercise our critical thinking skills, we can pick out the good ones. A good review SUPPORTS it's score with facts. You gave it a 9.0 for story? Why? What was good about it? Don't tell me you liked or disliked something--explain WHY.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top