Hey, I'm wondering who ppl really trust or align with taste-wise in regards to game reviews.
I've always been in this bubble and Gamespot before GB arrived and thought maybe I'd check out some other peeps.
I dunno. The written review seems to be mostly on the way out and I generally don't pay much attention to who writes the review, since the churn rate seems to be pretty high.
Having said that, I usually agreed with Sterling back when he was actually writing reviews. He had the added bonus of at least having a style, love it or hate it, which is more than can be said than most reviewers these days. So many of them read like they are giving a 4th grade book report.
Recently, I randomly found Inside Gaming based on YouTube recommendations and found myself generally agreeing with their reviews. The sample size is pretty small though.
From this site, my tastes generally align with, of all people, Dan. I can only conclude he must be more sophisticated than he lets on.
I used to be pretty defensive about the importance of the written review. But at this point I honestly can't tell you the last time I read a written review about a game. Or, frankly, even taken the time to watch a video review.
That isn't to say I don't care about game writing. I still read a lot of essays and critical pieces about gaming--whether at Vice or Polygon or Unwinnable, or even on Medium. But review-ass reviews are about as useless for me as they've ever been. Giant Bomb's Quick Looks, podcasts, plus a dash of general intuition is generally all I use to get me by.
Don't really read many reviews these days, not enough to have any sort of attachment anyway. When I do want to get a feel for a game I tend to just jump around a few sites and read the reviews there without paying much attention to who wrote them. I do actually prefer slightly more mechanical reviews though. Like I will go to Waypoint once in a while to see what Austin wrote on something, but you kind of know what you're getting into when you do that. GameSpot actually tends to have a lot of freelancers writing their stuff which is typically what I want - a by the numbers and to the point look at a game rather than an editorial deconstruction of the genre.
I find that straight gameplay demonstrating the actual "gameplay loop" is way more valuable to me than a review, just a couple minutes of random gameplay is usually enough for me.
If it's a game that doesn't have much coverage usually IGN have a review so i might check that out, but Steam reviews, for as controversial as they may be, i think are a fantastic way to get the low down on a game, you just need to know how to parse it.
For the most part i'm watching reviews of older games for entertainment, documentaries from the likes of Raycevick and Gvmers, and TheGamingBritShow, who has a brilliant video on how RE6 isn't anywhere near as bad as everyone seems to think.
I'll usually check out various folks on YouTube to see what the general consensus is, if it's something Giant Bomb doesn't do much in the way of coverage. Especially this year after I added a few new "professional enthusiasts" to my shitlist.
There's too many misusing their platforms nowadays letting their own politics drive their criticisms and outlook on the medium. Unfortunately that's become an issue for film and television as well, and art will suffer for it if it hasn't already when creators bend the knee to every complaint of certain themes or flawed character. It's seriously weird how some younger folks won't let shit slide or look for underlying causes for story direction or characters acting a certain way and will make a mountain out of a molehill on social media regardless of which side of the aisle they side.
Those that let it drive their reviews and try to make a statement by tossing out an absurd score or use it as an opportunity to go on some out of left field rant of a game set in a fictional world from a Japanese developer and use it as fuel of what they wish that game was and what it would offer. I don't care. Anyone that does that, I don't fucking care.
This has been something that's bugged me since the EGM days and their review of Fable, it's not about what you want something to be, it's about what it IS and your ability to identify something truly being "bad" rather than it simply not being your cup of tea for whatever reason.
No one really, at least not in the "This new game came out. I wonder what my favorite reviewer has to say about it so that I know if it's good or not" sense, because I've been doing this gaming thing of over 20 years and I know what my likes and dislikes are about a game just by looking at them for the most part, thanks to YouTube. But to expand from just talking about reviews and reviewers to journalists and and games related entertainers, still Super Best Friends Play with their post-breakup ventures, Funhaus/Inside Gaming, and GB's Quick Looks are still fun to watch.
Honestly, i feel like the only time i need a review nowadays if it's a very niche or obscure game. Last one where i had to do that with was The Next Big Thing.
In that case, my own gut is like 80% of the recommendation and the steam review section provides me with the information to know if i should go for it or not. I might check a video or 2 on top i guess, but hardly hunt for actual reviews on those games. Then again, i typically don't buy games at their release.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment