Most Trustworthy Reviewing Site?

I go with GB. There reviews are explosive.

Whoever gives the worst scores to good games because that means they're being honest. Everyone else just gets payed off.(I don't see this thread going well)

IGN, of course.

No, wait. No.

theres no real most trustworthy site all their scores are just their opinion

Me. I take all reviews with a grain of salt. In the end my opinion is the only one I care about when buying games.

@JoeyRavn: i dont really see why people think IGN is biased

@YI_Orange said:

Whoever gives the worst scores to good games because that means they're being honest. Everyone else just gets payed off.(I don't see this thread going well)

That's a flawed logic, what about hit-seeking site's purposely scoring fantastic games demeaning scores as a means of attracting more attention towards themselves?

giantbomb for sure, but I prefer to read user reviews that others post here on giantbomb

Giant Bomb was essentially founded because of journalistic integrity, so that's what I'm going with. But to be completely fair, Gamespot's been killing it over the last year or so with good, honest reviews. Although I disagree with them frequently on games like Rainbow Moon, I certainly can't fault their logic.

Obviously Destructoid, only site that gave Deadly Premennition the score it deserved.

It's subjective, you need to find a reviewer whose tastes align with yours. That's why Giant Bomb is personality driven.

Giant Bomb. Duh.

RPS write the only reviews I trust.

Trustworthy, really? Reviews aren't news, unless if reviews are peddling lies, why should reviews of a certain site be considered trustworthy? They're just a duder's opinion.

Maybe a site or writer's opinion or conformation biases lies most closely to yours, but eventually their opinion will be different than yours. Do you want a bunch of yes men reviews?

Why would we be here if we voted IGN? lol

I like the way the Giant Bomb staff breaks down games. They do a good job of explaining their opinions instead of frothing over titles they like. I used to like IGN, but so much of their stuff reads like an advertisement anymore that I can't stomach it. I'm not saying IGN is paid to write favorable reviews, but sometimes I imagine that I'm reading the reviews in the voice of former Xbox Live personality, Larry Herb. Way too enthusiastic.

I'd go with Polygon.

@wewantsthering: people dont have to like the reviews here to be on the forums

http://www.gamerevolution.com/

over a decade old, always trustworthy.

I don't even read reviews. I just listen to their opinions on stuff on the Bombcast.

I think it's hilarious you put Destructoid up there.

I actually think Quicklooks are far better than any game review.

@KingdomCome said:

@YI_Orange said:

Whoever gives the worst scores to good games because that means they're being honest. Everyone else just gets payed off.(I don't see this thread going well)

That's a flawed logic, what about hit-seeking site's purposely scoring fantastic games demeaning scores as a means of attracting more attention towards themselves?

Only scumbag corporations care more about hits than integrity, and they're getting payed by all the big games so they have to give them good scores. They only give low scores to games they didn't get payed to say good things about, and then it's not for traffic, it's to send a message to those cheapass idealists who think quality matters more than money. (By the way, I was not, and still am not, being serious)

Giant Bomb is the only site where I read reviews so...

@Benny said:

It's subjective, you need to find a reviewer whose tastes align with yours. That's why Giant Bomb is personality driven.

I totally agree with this.

I like GB, but in-terms of reviews I feel only Jeff's reviews apply to me.

@YI_Orange: but you did summarize what people here think of "mainstream video game sites" :/

Make my own decision based on other players. If not, look at a good review and a bad review for a game, then make a decision.

There isn't a single game site I frequent that has a consistent editorial voice across all its reviewers, as should be expected, so the most I can say is that I identify with a few specific reviewers, not websites.

As far as Giant Bomb goes, the only reviewer who I would let inform my opinion about a game is Ryan.

I perceive GiantBomb's reviews to be incredibly unique, in that they are more personal and less restricted by boundaries than other, more convoluted reviewers such as IGN, of whom are consistently contradicting their own marking scheme (Scoring criticised games perfect score for example). Whilst other reviewers are devoid of personality, such is not the case for GiantBomb, who, rather than assessing every aspect of a game by the reviewers guide, instead provide what they consider to be important components, what frustrates them and what they love. My only criticism is that I find Giant Bomb reviewers such as Jeff to be incredibly inconsistent, scoring some majorly flawed games such as the recently released "Syndicate" a perfect score, and then heavily scoring down a title based upon a few minor flaws...

My vote goes for EDGE, sure, they can be overly critical on numerous occasions, but they're hugely consistent and due to their critical nature, it takes great determination, originality and effort to retrieve a glowing reception from their reviewing staff...

@KingdomCome: the only games theve given 10s to were ones that there wasn't a single complaint in the review

and giant bomb also gives perfect scores to games they criticize (see syndicate) but your forgetting its in the reviewers opinion if the games flaws are so little to distract from what is otherwise a great experience

Gamespot has some of the best reviewers in the business. Especially Kevin Van Ord. I also really like Gametrailers. I used to say Giantbomb, but nowadays, they don't do much except sit down on their laurels and make quick-looks. There's a handful of reviews there and there, but most often than not, they seem like impressions more than a full-on reviews. I absolutely dislike IGN's clinical reviews, there's always something fishy about their scores, but I like their ''day-one'' video reviews. I initially came here to follow Jeff, Ryan and Brad, but to be honest, I don't care much for their reviews now.

@Benny said:

It's subjective, you need to find a reviewer whose tastes align with yours.

This.

No review site is particularly "trustworthy" in terms of scores. If you like a genre and have a high tolerance for technical hiccups, you will probably disagree with many opinions that other people swear by.

I barely ever read reviews but when I do it's the review from Killscreen.

The ones which aren't being funded by the same companies they're reviewing.

I am the only one who can know what I like.

GIANT BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMB

For me I usually just judge a game myself. Jeff said New Super Mario Bros. 2 is kinda boring. Personally, I'm really enjoying it myself.

How could you not put in Polygon in that poll? I usually trust Gameinformer for most of my reviews and Giantbomb. I also rarely care about reviews. I'd rather try it myself.

I stopped paying any attention to any reviews a few year back now and just buy what I like the look of. And to date my gamedar has not put a foot wrong. The whole review score thing just comes across as arbitrary to me.

@connerthekewlkid said:

@JoeyRavn: i dont really see why people think IGN is biased

I don't think they are "biased", I just don't like their reviews and their approach to reviewing. I can't debate the objective aspects they may raise (technical problems, features of a game, etc.), but I often find that many of the subjective aspects they touch upon are either wrong or shouldn't be included in the review.

@connerthekewlkid said:

theres no real most trustworthy site all their scores are just their opinion

This

/thread

@connerthekewlkid: I wasn't saying they have to. I'm saying that no duh people will favor GB reviews on a poll on the GB website. It's just a silly question.

Gametrailers for general reviews, and RPG Fan for rpgs.

What does "trustworthy" mean? You're an asshole for insinuating that any of those websites are somehow compromised. This was and is a fucking ridiculous accusation. GAMES ARE SERIOUS BUSINESS.

Giant Bomb obviously. But I also look at GameInformer and sometimes Joystiq. If I don't know who the reviewer is I'm a bit more critical towards it.

Giantbomb. And by thrustworthy I mean that I trust that every reviewer gives his honost opinion, regardless if I agree with that opinion or not

I find the most trustworthy video game reviewers don't lie with a particular website, but different sites' personalities whose opinions consistently have matched my own in the past. Adam Sessler, Brad Shoemaker, Ryan Davis, Jeff Cannata, Jeremy Parish, and (occasionally) Garnett Lee.

@YI_Orange said:

@KingdomCome said:

@YI_Orange said:

Whoever gives the worst scores to good games because that means they're being honest. Everyone else just gets payed off.(I don't see this thread going well)

That's a flawed logic, what about hit-seeking site's purposely scoring fantastic games demeaning scores as a means of attracting more attention towards themselves?

Only scumbag corporations care more about hits than integrity, and they're getting payed by all the big games so they have to give them good scores. They only give low scores to games they didn't get payed to say good things about, and then it's not for traffic, it's to send a message to those cheapass idealists who think quality matters more than money. (By the way, I was not, and still am not, being serious)

The ones which aren't being funded by the same companies they're reviewing.