I only pay attention to user reviews...

Just thought this was funny... user score doesn't always trump. Gerstmann was right, this game blew...

Just thought this was funny... user score doesn't always trump. Gerstmann was right, this game blew...

And I thought reviewers couldn't give a bad review in Gamespot and not get fired....Doh!

But but video game journalists are corrupt and out of touch with the internet!1!

User reviews are either "best game evar!!!" or "this gaem suckss"

Most the time

I actually pay little to no attention to user reviews because users suffer from confirmation bias and purchase justification - "If I bought it, it must be good, because I'm no sucker!" Also, user reviews are usually either 1) Fake 2) An overreaction to whatever the professional review was (they gave it a4, so I'll give it a 10! They gave it a 9, so I'll give it a 1!) and 3) Very, very poorly written.

Oh come on, it wasn't a 1.6, I played that when it was new. Wasn't "abysmal".

Sure it wasn't good at all, but that's got to be at least a 3.

@MikkaQ: You sir, are the problem!

To be honest, I would rather have teeth pulled than be forced to only pay attention to user reviews.

User reviews are always treated with a healthy dose of skepticism from me. After seeing things like all the Portal 2 user reviews on Metacrtic about how the game was "too short" and "full of day one DLC", I am glad we can at least trust most professional reviewers to take the entirety of a game into account when reviewing it instead of simply complaining about a single point.

The only downside to professional reviews is that they usually only offer a casual's insights. They rarely go indepth wich makes them borderline useless for fighting games especially. Killzone 3 was met with only praise totally ignoring the fact that it's Sniper class is pretty broken, maps are badly balanced and the maps all seem specifically designed to encourage camping. Stuff you don't immediately notice but can heavily impact the enjoyment. Edit: afcource iPhone posting eats all formatting

A big factor why I don't trust user reviews and opinions at the time of a game's release is that it's often weak-minded people wanting to defend their purchase decisions.

@Korolev said:

I actually pay little to no attention to user reviews because users suffer from confirmation bias and purchase justification - "If I bought it, it must be good, because I'm no sucker!" Also, user reviews are usually either 1) Fake 2) An overreaction to whatever the professional review was (they gave it a4, so I'll give it a 10! They gave it a 9, so I'll give it a 1!) and 3) Very, very poorly written.

Nah. When I review a game I look at it fairly because if I don't enjoy it, I can return it. Nice way to generalize though. The words "some" or "many" or "most" go a long way. Also, I am no Hawthorne, but my reviews are not poorly written. Also, you put yourself in that category as well, as you have written reviews.

There's nothing wrong with user reviews as a concept. Sometimes they are well written and offer insights that the gaming press can't (or won't). If you like a particular genre, reviews from major sites / publications may not do a particular game justice because not all sites have a person whose job is to review that genre. Some sites may not even review more obscure games or may not get around to doing so until well after release so user reviews could become important factors in deciding whether to make a purchase.

On the other hand, user scores with no analysis or "reviews" that consist of only one or two lines (day 1 dlc --> 1, X was better --> 1, _____ sucks --> 1) should be ignored categorically. Those are just cesspools of bias where 1) people can spew hatred for a game just b/c they think it's cool to do so, 2) fanboys who are annoyed that a game got a better score than their favorite game can get their revenge, however trivial and insignificant it may be, and 3) fanboys of the game try to fight back by giving 10s to counteract the 1s given by the haters, even though said fanboys know the game isn't a 10.

The sad part is that the useful, well-composed reviews often get lost because of the volume of the 1s and 10s.

Nothing wrong with user reviews. I just want to trust the reporter. That way i don't have to rely on my lame ass friends to give me the deal?

I think the real question is what makes a game a 1.6 and not a 1.5...

It's virtually impossible to find the time to track down users you actually care about the opinions of. Regardless, user reviews also aren't timely.

Game reviews on the whole are only worth listening to, to find out if a game is inherently broken/flawed. Everything else I can find out about on my own, "professional" reviews have steered me wrong far too many times. L.A. Noire getting universal praise was ridiculous, too many reviews sites just seem to be trying to preserve their buddy status with publishers instead of offering in-depth critique. Just look at Mass Effect 3, that game is a step back from 2 in numerous ways, good luck finding reviewers actually talking about that. Bombcast is the only place I've heard some real criticism for that game. (you know, from the "professionals")

tl;dr too many reviewers glaze over a game's problems

"User Reviews" gave Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 like, 3 point something on metacritic. That pretty much summarizes what it means to look at an aggregation of user ratings.

I may read individual actual *reviews* from users, so I know whether or not an opinion is actually lucid and coherent, but user *scores* are much too often just zealous ratings that fundamentalist fans/haters give to a game they really hate or love, and not accurate or reflective at all of a game's quality.

Also, that probably happened with that VMX game because most times when one goes visit a Gamespot page of an old game, it's most likely because one enjoyed said game and would like to fondly remember it. Therefore, upon seeing such a negative Gerstmann rating, the nostalgic fans will try to bump up the user score by giving it perfect 10s or something. This affects the user score a lot because, as you can see, there aren't that many votes on that game, assumptively because at the time the game was released not as many people went to Gamespot since there weren't as many people using the internet (and maybe user reviews weren't even a thing on that website at that time). Then there's the smaller group of people who bumps into this page and remembers said game was shit, and tries to bring down the user score by giving it 1 ratings or something.

So it's probably safe to say that user ratings in older games are more likely to be inaccurate than user ratings of contemporary games (and by a higher margin too, it seems).

@Sooty said:

Game reviews on the whole are only worth listening to, to find out if a game is inherently broken/flawed.

Spot on. That is THE ONLY thing I am interested in from a review.

Story sucks - that's your opinion.

Art is horrid - in the eye of the beholder.

Voices grate - in the ear of the beholder.

Script sucks - bah, it is there to hold the game together, who reads all of it anyway.

Even the part about the broken bits are inherently risky. What if they just suck at the game? If I see summary after summary that reiterates the same thing, then I am inclined to believe there is a problem, but otherwise no. I know what I like and assuming it isn't broken, then I am prepared to take the risk on finding out for myself. The risk I am willing to take determines the buying price. I just don't read reviews and reviewers are no better than a decent quality user review (if you can wade through them).

@Contrarian: You can extract a lot more than whether or not a game "sucks" from a video game review. A review can provide a different perspective on a game's content that may make you appreciate or just notice parts of a game you normally wouldn't. If you only read a game review to know whether or not a game is "broken/flawed" then you are taking a narrow-minded approach to game criticism, and understating the value there is in having talent for analyzing and critiquing a video game. The sort of talent our fine reviewers here at Giant Bomb bask in.

EDIT: I highly recommend you read the awesome three-parted interview Patrick conducted with BioWare senior designer Manveer Heir on the subject of "game reviews" and "game criticism".

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3

I don't trust user reviews at all. They usually are more biased than critical reviews are. Not to mention, way too many people delve into absurd levels of hyperbole.

Reviews are just a reference point, professionals or users/readers. We all know what we wanna play and prefer. It's those times when you're between things, and you're not sure about a game, at least for me, when I want some feedback from a person who I trust and has actually played thrpough the game in question.

Also, user reviews that are meant to grind an axe, like the ME3 reviews lately for example, are easy to spot, where pro reviews w/an agenda are much harder to discern. Hell, user advice here trumps the crews easily in my book.

@Snail said:

@Contrarian: You can extract a lot more than whether or not a game "sucks" from a video game review. A review can provide a different perspective on a game's content that may make you appreciate or just notice parts of a game you normally wouldn't. If you only read a game review to know whether or not a game is "broken/flawed" then you are taking a narrow-minded approach to game criticism, and understating the value there is in having talent for analyzing and critiquing a video game. The sort of talent our fine reviewers here at Giant Bomb bask in.

EDIT: I highly recommend you read the awesome three-parted interview Patrick conducted with BioWare senior designer Manveer Heir on the subject of "game reviews" and "game criticism".

No offence, but I have no desire whatsoever to read anything by the staff here. They don't strike me as any more "talented" than any other reviewer out there. Like my news, I just want the facts (so I don't watch Fox then). I enjoy my "narrow-minded" approach to games, reviews and reviewers in general. It hasn't steered me wrong once. Again, I know what I like and I garner enough from "summaries" at Metacritic to enhance the overall picture. Even the news is generally pointless to me. I take out the headlines and stop reading. Whatever works for the individual should be fine. If you get what you want, then you are no different to me, via different routes.