What top 3 videogame websites do you look to as your go to sources when it comes to reviews?

So Giant bomb community, simple enough question.

What TOP 3 videogame websites do you look to as your go to sources when it comes to reviews?

In addition to that, what top 3 videogame websites do you think are the most popular and which do you think are the most informative with their review write-ups?

I'm not talking about the community, the forums, or anything news or media related. Just straight up game reviews.

Which places make you feel secure about picking up a game you are on the fence about?

P.S: I obviously realize a good majority of those on here will choose this website lol.

-WHERE DO YOU GO NINJA APPROVED-

None.

None. Reviews are pointless.

They used to mean something back when every second game that game out was busted, broken, incomplete or superficial. The whole graphics/sound/replay value sub-categories made sense in that context. Nowadays, reviews are just someone's opinion and nothing else. A completely competent game that you would enjoy more than anything else that year, can get 2 stars. A game that bores you to the point you're literally crying can get 5 stars.

For years there haven't been any reviews at all that are useful for purchasing advice. They are a good source of someone's opinion. You should read a review if you care what someone thought of a game. For example, Civilization VI is getting a lot of backlash from the community. It's roughly a 50/50 split. I really like it myself and could not care less for reviews that say it's bad or reviews that say it's good for that matter. I would honestly like to hear what Marbozir (YouTuber) thinks about it though since I always watch him play it. A review of his would be useful, just because I want to know what he thinks, not because it would color my view on the game in any way.

Giant Bomb has just about the most well written reviews I've seen and I don't care for them barely at all. I'm sometimes curious what they think, but it's not useful beyond that.

I try and avoid reviews as much as possible for games I want to play. Bad games don't really get released anymore, so reviews are pretty pointless. It would be nice if reviews started going full on spoilerly so they'd be worth reading after you'd finished a game.

metacritic.

you tube.

And that's all. Between the two, I can usually make up my own mind if I agree with reviewers or not.

1. Giantbombdotcom. It's a website, about video games.
2. Metacritic. For when a game is not covered by GB but seems interesting and I just want to get a quick overview of the quality.
3. YouTube. If "Game X" has is not covered by GB and has positive reactions on Metacritic, I'll watch a couple of videos of it before deciding to purchase.

Giantbomb is literally the only video game website I visit.

It would be completely useless for me to check reviews from another source because I have no idea who the reviewer is and what his tastes are. With Giantbomb, I have a very good understanding, therefore if I'm looking for purchasing advice (vary rarely from a review), I know what to expect and where my opinion will usually match up.

I just go to Metacritic, ignore the individual scores and read the review summaries. Will click through to reviews from there if I really want more info.

I like reading them when they appear here on Giant Bomb but I don't think a lone written review has been make or break on my buying a game for a long time. A consensus among them might.

It helps that I generally wait for 'Complete Editions' and discounts of games so that I don't need to worry about paying full price for something I end up not enjoying. With regular digital discounts making some games really cheap, it's easier than ever to just check something out yourself.

Giantbomb.com

Videogames.com

Nuke.com

WHAT IS EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD TALKING ABOUT?!?!

Bad games don't get released anymore?! News to me, man. There are absolutely games that get released that are broken on a technical level. Or maybe are boring. Or maybe fail to make the statement they are trying to make. Or are too short.

Are reviews becoming less useful now that we have hours of gameplay footage available for any given game? Sure. But I certainly don't have time to watch hours (or even 20 minutes sometimes) of gameplay for every single game I'm interested in. So I turn to written reviews from writers and outlets I know I can trust.

And sometimes it can be fun to read reviews! A good take down of a terrible game can be hilarious. A review about a game the writer has a strong personal connection to can be insightful (e.g. Austin Walker's review of Galak-Z on this very site).

So I don't know what everyone in this thread is on about. Maybe they have infinite time to watch gameplay videos. Or maybe every game they play is amazing. Or maybe they hate thoughtful discussion on games. I don't know.

So anyway OP, let me ACTUALLY answer your question. Usually I read:

Game Informer

Polygon

Giant Bomb

This is obviously contingent on the person writing the review, as there are folks from each establishment that I agree with more than others.

Edit: I also have really like Waypoint so far, though they don't really write formal reviews, so I didn't include them in my list

Edit2: I wrote this rant when there were 3 replies to this post, and they were all variations on "meh, reviews, who needs em?!" So sorry if it seems like I flipped my lid a bit

Giantbomb first, then I'll search for reviews on OpenCritic. The thing I like about Opencritic is that it allows to see and read the actual reviews a lot more easily than Metacritic (which focuses too much on the average score), so I can more easily filter out what I consider "bad" critics and websites.

Apart from these two, I often look out for Totalbiscuit, Eurogamer and Destructoid reviews.

I come to Giant Bomb to see if there is a quicklook or any appearance on the site...I also see if any duders on here are talking about it. Other than that I strictly stick to word of mouth. I find reviews, in general, to not be that useful to me if I don't know the reviewer or what their tastes are. In general I've stopped going to most video game websites, especially blogs like Kotaku, as I find there to be little of quality. If there something worth reading its been shared on Twitter or somewhere but I don't peruse those sites casually as I hate how blogs publish trash articles just to meet some quota (otherwise it speaks even worse for them) and I don't like the editorial direction of sites like Polygon.

I have no issues going to Metacritic to see what consensus there is but I don't treat it as gospel. I think knowing the reviewer is especially important. Take Greg Miller from KindaFunny for instance...I don't trust his word when it comes to anything relating to Batman or Superman because I am familiar with him and what he's said and his tastes.

Mostly youtube and sometimes USGamer for RPG reviews.

Mostly Giant Bomb and Usgamer, and occasional look over metacritic.

When it comes to new games I don't really look at reviews until I finish the game myself to see if people generally have the same opinion or a different one than mine. All the time I just head over to YouTube for reviews whether it be people I subscribed to or someone else that has a review on the game.

Yes, I'm sorry to say I don't go anywhere else for reviews. Even the reviews here I read for a general 'temperature in the room" about a game and not for recommendations. I go to Glixel (John Davison) and Waypoint (i.e. Austin & Patrick) for my other news and culture about games.

Last year especially I found for myself that reviews are dead. I don't seek them out at all. I ready GB reviews but that is more to be polite. I watch previews and some Quick-looks during teh release week, and then make my buying choices. If a picture was worth a thousand words, than a video quicklook is worth a whole book of words about how something plays and how well. If I want to know what a game means or what it 'stance' is socially; I'll go to Waypoint or Glixel for that in depth pop-culture criticism.

This, although never exclusively in this order. Youtube is good for games in motion, metacritic is great for consensus. Giant Bomb is good for discussion.

Giant Bomb doesn't do many reviews anymore but a quick look is usually enough to show me what I need. Otherwise I'll check gamerankings or any other review aggregator.

I don't often use reviews as purchasing advice these days (preferring podcast discussion and with the accessibility of gameplay footage and streams). However, I still like to read a good review. Picking three is kinda tough, but I'd probably go for Giant Bomb, PC Gamer, and Videogamer if I was pushed. I could name a fair few more, though (plus I feel like I should note I still have a subscription to the physical release of OPM UK).

It's probably always been this way, but I've come to feel that following "outlets" is an outdated notion.

What really matters is the individual critic. E.g. I think there are some folks at Polygon that are good and there are some that really don't have a good process imo. Should I ignore the talented reviewers there just because I think some of their colleagues suck? That's not their fault their bosses may have made some poor hires or don't edit their colleagues well.

Or to put it another way that's maybe a bit less combative. Even here at Giantbomb I trust different staff members' opinions on certain games more than others. And they kind of self-acknowledge by self-selecting who reviews what and how they steer bombcast discussions etc.

e.g. If it's a multiplayer team based game, Brad is the primary voice I'm going to listen to, because he has a lot of experience with and passion for those kinds games similar to the way I do. If it's about a MMO or a big RPG, Rorie is the guy whose opinion matters the most to me. If it's an open world game, Vinny's take is the one I usually find most in tune with my tastes. etc etc. They all have differing areas of strength.

And the same thing goes with people I know. There are users on Giantbomb whose opinion on certain franchises and such I hold in greater weight than professional critics.

So lately what I've been doing is using Lifebar.io that was created a while ago by other GiantBomb users and following certain journalists on there. If a critic I think has an interesting perspective and they review a game I'm curious about, I'll go check it out.

If I want a general bird's eye view of the consensus or to look for reviews on a game that didn't get a lot of coverage, I'll use Open Critic. I rarely ever do that though as I think the aggregate can be misleading in many ways.

None. Honestly I don't even read the reviews here unless it's a game I really like and I want to see what one of the guys thought of it. I get most of my ideas for future purchases from watching video content here or on twitch.

I'll read Giantbomb's reviews every now and then, but as much as they like the crew their taste in games often don't align with mine, so I don't really look to them for anything beyond an interest in what their feelings are about a game. But it's been over a decade since I really used reviews as a purchasing guideline. I have my methods to determine whether a game is worth buying that has served me just fine. Reviews only serve as a means to stave off boredom.

GB, Destructoid, and Game Infomer. I'll usually check IGN at some point, too.

This ninja gimmick makes me laugh more than I should, and I don't know if that's a good thing.

I usually base my interest in a game on podcast discussions and quick looks. I might occasionally watch an IGN video review or read one here at Giant Bomb.

By volume I listen to the GB guy's opinions more than any other, but I get insights from other podcasts too. Idle Thumbs, Nintendo Voice Chat, Game Informer, Waypoint and 8-4 Play round out my "trusted" sources.

Hmmm....Well, I don't read a ton of reviews anymore. I will usually read a review on Giant Bomb if the game interests me, like I did with Dan's Resident Evil 7 review. In truth, I would probably read more reviews if Giant Bomb wrote more or had guest reviews or something.

Besides that, I mainly take a temperature of the room. While I know it is not the best website for this industry or reviews and so forth, I do look at Metacritic. I don't make purchasing decisions based on it, but I look at it to provide a quick snapshot of a game. Besides that, it's mainly listening to podcasts, checking if something is (relatively) popular on Steam, stuff like that. I think a part of it is because I know typically the kinds of games I'm interested in playing. I'll pay attention to the wildcards or surprise hits like Stardew Valley or Undertale, but a lot of those decisions aren't based on reading on review.

Gonna parrot what other posters have said - None.

Reviews are pointless to me at this stage. I care a lot about how a game controls and feels to play, and in that respect reviews offer me absolutely nothing. Hell, even podcasts rarely get into details about how a game actually feels.

And to be fair, even a video doesn't give you a complete picture of the moment to moment mechanics of a game, but it's infinitely better than anything that traditional games coverage can offer.

I enjoy reading reviews for their own sake - though moreso from particular reviewers than particular websites, so I can't really answer the question - but they don't strongly influence whether or not I'll play a game. If consensus is really good, I might be more inclined to check something out, but that still usually goes nowhere. I know my tastes well enough and don't mind making bad calls on occasion.

USGamer, Eurogamer and Rock Paper Shotgun mostly. Sometimes Polygon, depending on who wrote the review.

Giant Bomb, but only for the Quick Look. I don't really care about Review-ass reviews.

I disagree with many of the opinions here. I think there's significant variance in the quality of games being released today, even if all of them tend to be functional. I find reviews to be informative, especially in respect to the games content and whatnot. In many cases reviews discuss features like how the inventory is structured, how the game performs, the games pacing, etc. in a very objective way.

I tend to ignore the more subjective, and acknowledge the objective, design critiques and how they weighted on the reviewers experience. With that in mind, I find that ARstechnica and Eurogamer provide the most helpful reviews for me. I can't think of a third right now but there's probably one I read frequently. I use N4G quite a lot so I see all of the reviews for every game, as they come in, and I tend to just click whichever takes my fancy in the moment.

Oh, reviews... While I don't look to a review to see if I should buy a game in general (to be contrary to what seems like popular opinion, a score is good enough for that to me simply because it says 'hey, maybe you should check this game out!'), I do like to see and hear some sites opinions. I'll gander at a review if it's a game I didn't initially have any interest in and it has high praise, or if it's one of the worst of the year perhaps, but I generally only seek out what they think of games I'm interested in getting. Sometimes they'll even review a game I had no idea was even coming out so they can be good for that as well. Top three would be Giant Bomb, Game Informer, and either God is a Geek (which is more recent for me) or Kinda Funny Games.

That's technically four, but I like to see what they all have to say. I also go to GameSpot and IGN still, but I am not as interested to hear their views on games. I mainly come onto gaming sites to see what's new in games, but I do like to discuss games and see others' views on what's new and old. Reviews are just a good starting point of taking up discussion of a game. I'd rather play the game first and then give my point, adding to the conversation that a review basically started than to take their points of praise and criticism and take it for granted as if I think the same. I don't get a lot out of simply reading a review if I never play the game and can't add anything to the discussion. To me, that's part of the fun of the whole thing.

If I want to play a game, just looking at video of the game is more informative to me than a review.

The 3 gaming sites I frequent at all are (In this order) Giant bomb, Polygon, and Ign. So take that as my answer I guess.

I check out reviews only to see if a game is utter garbage/broken technically/control-wise and that's about it. I don't care what someone else thinks of the story or art design, I'll decide that on my own.
Giant Bomb (obviosly), IGN (I know, been there since it started though), Gamerankings.com
I used to check Gamespot as a direct balance to whatever IGN is spewing but I don't go there anymore.

I don't read that many reviews, but if I do, my top 3 choices are usually Jimquisition, USGamer, and ACG on Youtube (who (whom?) everyone should go subscribe to right now and thank me later).

Oh yeah, I also started using OpenCritic instead of Metacritic. I don't really have a problem with the latter, but I just prefer the look and feel of OpenCritic a lot more.

I feel like reviews matter to me less and less. There are too many games that were universally praised that I thought were mediocre at best and games that were either ignored or received badly that I absolutely loved. I feel like some uncut gameplay footage (like in a Quick Look) tells me a lot more about the game.

Also the general community opinion on various websites can give a lot of insight since the people that will talk about a game are (typically) only the ones, that are interested in it or are fans of a series. Not somebody reviewing a JRPG that doesn't actually like JRPGs but drew the short straw. Obviously some are also just fanboys, so it takes some discernment.

• Eurogamer
• PCGamer
• Polygon

After reading those three, I usually have a pretty good idea whether it's for me or not.

I usually source material from a few places. Giant Bomb generally for quick looks. GameSpot/Polygon/IGN for reviews. And then supplement that with some video from other sources. Since I spend a majority of my money that is dedicated to hobbies on video games I like to have a fairy educated opinion on whether I would enjoy it. Within that there are factors such as people's tastes and how they historically view genres and the "best" games in those genres. Nothing is concrete of course. It can't be quantified in black and white. So it's just a matter of deduction where best you can. In the end it still comes down to personal opinion on everything. But at least I sort of know what I'm getting myself into.

• Giantbomb
• RockPaperShotgun

If not covered on one of those I usually google or youtube it and check some of the first results

None, kinda grew out of reviews around Dreamcast/PS2 era, maybe even late 32bit. Even at the time I dont actually think I used them for purchasing advice. That might explain why GB is the only "traditional" games website I visit(I go to a few others that just cover jrpgs and things that GB does not cover).

I don't usually look at reviews. I more or less check gameplay then go buy it on steam. If I like it great! If I don't I just refund it.

I look at everything, user/steam reviews included. I find that my taste is different from mainstream so i need to know why people like or dislike something rather than a single review score.

Every review counts some what if the majority is good then I decide if I'm interested enough. I pretty much know what I like and don't like these days it's not as hard as the NES or SNES era that shit was a gamble you had magazine reviews but that was it.

No formal reviews I suppose, but like most of (or all) of ya'll I listen to the podcasts and follow the GB guys on Twitter so if they're digging on a game I'll know about it from there or a Quick Look. Actually Twitter has been pretty good at letting me know what the hot new games are in the community because I follow a lot of games writers in general.

I know everyone hates them but I use one of those Steam curator lists for space games, which are my addiction. If something looks neat there I'll check it out.

Alright, now when should I expect that Amazon gift card?

This is the one thing I particularly worry about when the notion of youtube is brought up in regards to game reviews.

I'm always worried that the video I'm watching will throw in a clip from the game that may potentially ruin/spoil something for me. Gametrailers was notooooorious for doing stuff like that back in the day. It got to the point that I stopped going to their site to see their reviews.

-SPOILER ALERT NINJA APPROVED-

I usually just pop to Metacritic quickly and if it's a 70 score or above, my interest is peaked a little. Then I go skim-read the reviews on Polygon, Eurogamer, Giant Bomb, Gamespot, etc. Then I look for The Jimquisition's totally shocking lower-than-everyone-else's score (yawn) and scoff.

What I find every time though is that I'm right about every game I think looks good. I have never not enjoyed a game I thought looked worth playing beforehand, and they are usually received well. Nothing to brag about, I'm just saying reviews usually end up something I read in-depth after I've finished a game, to absorb the often wonderfully-worded praise for games I absolutely loved, and enjoy the different writing styles of each person for the sake of it. I know what I like better than they can, but I am a fan of of games journalism itself, and usually just ignore overly-critical cynics, instead seeking out wordsmiths with insightful, constructive feedback, regardless of the site's reputation or whatever. Despite GB's often flippant and knee-jerk opinions in podcasts and whatnot, their reviews tend to be very balanced and thoughtful compared to a lot of other people, even when they didn't like the game.

@videogameninja: Yeah, that's a risk bur if I'm not invested in the story prior, I can watch without problems.

Thinking back, I've only bought two games I genuinely regretted. Top Spin on the PS2 (not the port you want but I didn't have an Xbox) and Assassins Creed.

Cheques in the mail ;)

-SNAIL MAIL NINJA APPROVED-