Do you trust reviewers or regular gamers more?

When you look for opinions on a game, do you gravitate more towards the opinions of regular gamers or the opinions of reviewers?

I personally gravitate more towards reviewers. I feel that they are generally more open-minded, they seem to do a better job of minimizing their biases (even though they will almost always fail to outright eliminate them) and I feel that they look at games holistically and for the most part they don't simply zero in on some missing features and stuff like that. Also, professional reviews don't have that sort of "complaining" vibe to them and they also tend to engage in less hyperbole.

That's not to say that regular gamers can't be as good as reviewers. There are some regular gamers whose opinions are just as valuable to me.

How about you? Do you trust reviews or regular gamers more?

I use a combination of both, but in the end I make my own opinion.SpiritOfFire117

I should have put that option in the poll.

Gamers that share my taste in video games.

I totally trust regular gamers on the internet.

See Alan Wake, for example. It hasa Metacritcuser rating of 1.9.

I'm so not getting it, lulz.

I distrust both equally, as both tend to look at games through hype coated goggles. At least, with gamers, you can get a consensus of how most people feel about a game.

Depends on the situation. There are certain porfessional reviewers (Jeremy Parish at 1up, Kevin V here) that I trust. I also generally find myself agreeing with the guys at Penny Arcade. I also trust gamers with the same taste that I have.

I look at a lot of things.

I use a combination of both, but in the end I make my own opinion.SpiritOfFire117

This

[QUOTE="SpiritOfFire117"]I use a combination of both, but in the end I make my own opinion.jimkabrhel

This

Just to clarify, I understand that everybody here develops their own opinion. Reviews and the opinions of regular gamers are more like "the research" if you know what I mean.

Sites that average out scores are a big influence, but in the end I just follow my own instincts.

Reviewers who are regular gamers. Go Jeff!

Gamers that share my taste in video games.

Yandere

That's a really smart way to go about if one has very defined tastes. My tastes are not really all that defined. My tastes are very eclectic. The only type of game I really don't like is RTS games.

regular gamers mainly, most reviewers criticized the new AvP game, but I'm finding that it has some of the best most unique multiplayer this gen. its only issue is that the marines are insanely underpowered, but the predators and aliens are both amazing against each other, theyre really pretty evenly matched and offer there own unique play styles.

I trust me.

If by regular gamers you mean the general public, then reviewers. If by regular gamers, you mean respected, intelligent members of gaming communities who know what they are talking about, then they are probably about equal.

If by regular gamers you mean the general public, then reviewers. If by regular gamers, you mean respected, intelligent members of gaming communities who know what they are talking about, then they are probably about equal.

StealthMonkey4

Not the general public, but the general gaming community.

Reviewers can be paid off, you know.

Reviewers can be paid off, you know.

SgtKevali

Reviewers can be paid off, you know.

SgtKevali

So do gamers too if we want to play the conspiracy game.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

Reviewers can be paid off, you know.

nintendos-mario

So do gamers too if we want to play the conspiracy game.

It's not a conspiracy, Ubisoft tried to pay off a German website. Corporate influence is regular in most aspects of journalism. Don't be so naive.

I generally trust the gamer public more. They tend to line up more closely with mine own tastes than do the scores of reviewers. Some reviewers, hi Kevin, would claim that fans are too lenient on certain things. While fan scores are generally higher than reviewer scores, I think that actually has more to do with the fact that reviewers are too harsh or apply improper standards. Vandalvideo

What do you mean by improper standards?

Fan scores do tend to be higher, but I actually think that the gaming public tends to be more harsh. They tend to zero in on omitted secondary features and stuff in a way that reviewers don't. Just look at the difference between reviewers reactions to streamlining of GTA IV and some of the gaming public's reactions to the game's streamlined nature. Like I said, reviewer look at games more holistically IMO.

I look at both, but I will never let others influence my choices.

I buy games by judging gameplay videos and some basic information such as genre, lasting appeal, etc. If lots of people and reviewers go crazy over a certain game, I wouldn't follow unless I want to.

ACII had universal praise, but judging from what I've seen of the core gameplay, it's really not my style. Sure it has a great story with awesome environments and platforming/sandbox gameplay, but I don't like the gameplay style of waiting to counter the enemies. It also has NO challenge. Therefore I decided to watch the cutscenes on youtube for the amazing story and saved 70$ (Canadian prices with taxes).

Other games that flew under the praise but appeal to me will be purchased. Back then, before the GS review, I wanted to buy Demon Souls the instant I heard it was coming to NA. I had no clue that it would be GOTY, and I honestly didn't care. I saw the trailers, the videos, and I liked what I saw. I don't know anyone who had the game back then, and SW was trashing it(BSO did, and some guy said he would eat his shoe if it got AAA, saw this on someone's sig) or ignoring it while counting pixels in the KZ2 graphics threads.

I find the scoring and the "FLOP" game in SW completely childish and very disconnected with the real world tbh (oh well at least it's for teh lulz.)

People must fully comprehend that a review, no matter how professional at appearance, is simply an opinion of the reviewer (or teh sellout conspiracy *cough* MW2 *cough*). Sure, it's easy to compare the numbers instead of playing through each game, and it may help to spend your money better. Nevertheless, it is the fact that you are playing the game for your own fun that people forget, a review is a measure of how much fun other people had, as simple as that. They are not mathematical facts. Who's to stop anyone to enjoy their game regardless of the score? Like the millions of people who bought Just Dance?

This notion of anything below AAA is junk makes me laugh, as well as the people buying games just because they are AAA or vice versa just because they scored lower (not even the casual crowd is as stupid as these people (no pun intended, just noticed that teh casuals gets some hate here), and they buy things for the brand name only.) It's like they have no mind of their own, and must have some "AAA" status behind the game to accept it. This goes against the foundations of video game medium: to have fun and feel the accomplishment, (I would say IMO but I don't think that's debatable) regardless of the others' view on how you're getting the said fun and accomplishment from your game.

There is no point of saying a game is better because others enjoyed it better (i.e. scores). It's the same as saying a shovel is more usefull to the guy living in Siberia than a brand new laptop, therefore, the worth of a average shovel is superior to the laptop for him, as he needs to use it in his snowy everyday life. Does that means I will be buying a shovel over the same laptop in my position and feel more secure from that? :|

I must add, however, that sometimes it's quite sad that a game gets great scores and is genuinely deserving but ended up not selling. Buried gems like Okami, Psychonauts, TC's EndWar, World of Goo, etc were great stuff, yet fell off the radar because of the lack of marketing. I think it's perfectly fine to look up the reviews to decide your purchase, but a review is not your own opinion, and you should use the review to build your opinion instead of just taking the number at the end.

Finally, I want to insert a comment about how ironic the whole video game journalism feels to me. I never find it confortable or even acceptable for others to shove their opinions down other people's throat, yet the whole point of the review process is based on this. Reviewers may not think about this when writing, but at the end of the day, the reader of any review will have their opinion replicated while reading the review. This is automatically done by any intelligent reader who tries to fully understand the reviewer's points when he put himself in the reviewer's shoes. That's why I like video reviews better, at least you could see the gameplay yourself instead of imagining the stuff exactly how the reviewer felt like putting it.

(no matter how low of a score a review of Just Cause 2 gets, the viewer will be more than interested by the exploding goodness of hijacking a jet and crashing in a building and escape unharmed with the magical physics defying hookshot while rolling over 5 gouvernment soldiers. I would get this game even if it got 1.0, seriously)

edit: Holy ****, didn't notice the wall of text. Guess I went overboard :P

Anyway, TL;DR version:

Form your own opinion guys, scores are just the other guy's opinion, nothing more.

Gamer friends>>>> reviews>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet gamers

What do you mean by improper standards?GreySeal9

I distrust both equally, as both tend to look at games through hype coated goggles. At least, with gamers, you can get a consensus of how most people feel about a game.

Pug-Nasty

Reviewers. Trusting your own opinion doesn't make much sense when you haven't played the game. And if you have played the game, of course you're going to form your own opinion.

This. I dont trust any single person's opinion, but when 4,600 gamers have voted for a games rating on say this site for example it gives u a good idea of how the game is. .YankeeDan345

Not if it's Halo or MGS... or any other high-profile exclusive... or CoD.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]What do you mean by improper standards?Vandalvideo

I think you bring up some legitimate points. I do agree that there are many subtle biases in reviews. I think the double standards issue arises from the fact that different reviewers have different standards, which begs the question: should websites have some basic standards that reviewers follow? That might limit their ability to say what they want, but might avoid double standards to a certain degree.

Reviewers. Trusting your own opinion doesn't make much sense when you haven't played the game. And if you have played the game, of course you're going to form your own opinion.

Silverbond

But reviewers can be bought. Like I said earlier, Ubisoft tried to pay off a German website. And that's what leaked out. You don't think some reviewers might be under this influence. That seems naive to say the least.

[QUOTE="Silverbond"]

Reviewers. Trusting your own opinion doesn't make much sense when you haven't played the game. And if you have played the game, of course you're going to form your own opinion.

SgtKevali

But reviewers can be bought. Like I said earlier, Ubisoft tried to pay off a German website. And that's what leaked out. You don't think some reviewers might be under this influence. That seems naive to say the least.

And regular gamers can be irrational fanboys.

I'd still go with reviewers.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="Silverbond"]

Reviewers. Trusting your own opinion doesn't make much sense when you haven't played the game. And if you have played the game, of course you're going to form your own opinion.

Silverbond

But reviewers can be bought. Like I said earlier, Ubisoft tried to pay off a German website. And that's what leaked out. You don't think some reviewers might be under this influence. That seems naive to say the least.

And regular gamers can be irrational fanboys.

I'd still go with reviewers.

Yes, but you can distinguish the fanboy frm the rational gamer most of the time. With the reviewers, not so much.

I look at both, but I will never let others influence my choices.

I buy games by judging gameplay videos and some basic information such as genre, lasting appeal, etc. If lots of people and reviewers go crazy over a certain game, I wouldn't follow unless I want to.

ACII had universal praise, but judging from what I've seen of the core gameplay, it's really not my style. Sure it has a great story with awesome environments and platforming/sandbox gameplay, but I don't like the gameplay style of waiting to counter the enemies. It also has NO challenge. Therefore I decided to watch the cutscenes on youtube for the amazing story and saved 70$ (Canadian prices with taxes).

Other games that flew under the praise but appeal to me will be purchased. Back then, before the GS review, I wanted to buy Demon Souls the instant I heard it was coming to NA. I had no clue that it would be GOTY, and I honestly didn't care. I saw the trailers, the videos, and I liked what I saw. I don't know anyone who had the game back then, and SW was trashing it(BSO did, and some guy said he would eat his shoe if it got AAA, saw this on someone's sig) or ignoring it while counting pixels in the KZ2 graphics threads.

I find the scoring and the "FLOP" game in SW completely childish and very disconnected with the real world tbh (oh well at least it's for teh lulz.)

People must fully comprehend that a review, no matter how professional at appearance, is simply an opinion of the reviewer (or teh sellout conspiracy *cough* MW2 *cough*). Sure, it's easy to compare the numbers instead of playing through each game, and it may help to spend your money better. Nevertheless, it is the fact that you are playing the game for your own fun that people forget, a review is a measure of how much fun other people had, as simple as that. They are not mathematical facts. Who's to stop anyone to enjoy their game regardless of the score? Like the millions of people who bought Just Dance?

This notion of anything below AAA is junk makes me laugh, as well as the people buying games just because they are AAA or vice versa just because they scored lower (not even the casual crowd is as stupid as these people (no pun intended, just noticed that teh casuals gets some hate here), and they buy things for the brand name only.) It's like they have no mind of their own, and must have some "AAA" status behind the game to accept it. This goes against the foundations of video game medium: to have fun and feel the accomplishment, (I would say IMO but I don't think that's debatable) regardless of the others' view on how you're getting the said fun and accomplishment from your game.

There is no point of saying a game is better because others enjoyed it better (i.e. scores). It's the same as saying a shovel is more usefull to the guy living in Siberia than a brand new laptop, therefore, the worth of a average shovel is superior to the laptop for him, as he needs to use it in his snowy everyday life. Does that means I will be buying a shovel over the same laptop in my position and feel more secure from that? :|

I must add, however, that sometimes it's quite sad that a game gets great scores and is genuinely deserving but ended up not selling. Buried gems like Okami, Psychonauts, TC's EndWar, World of Goo, etc were great stuff, yet fell off the radar because of the lack of marketing. I think it's perfectly fine to look up the reviews to decide your purchase, but a review is not your own opinion, and you should use the review to build your opinion instead of just taking the number at the end.

Finally, I want to insert a comment about how ironic the whole video game journalism feels to me. I never find it confortable or even acceptable for others to shove their opinions down other people's throat, yet the whole point of the review process is based on this. Reviewers may not think about this when writing, but at the end of the day, the reader of any review will have their opinion replicated while reading the review. This is automatically done by any intelligent reader who tries to fully understand the reviewer's points when he put himself in the reviewer's shoes. That's why I like video reviews better, at least you could see the gameplay yourself instead of imagining the stuff exactly how the reviewer felt like putting it.

(no matter how low of a score a review of Just Cause 2 gets, the viewer will be more than interested by the exploding goodness of hijacking a jet and crashing in a building and escape unharmed with the magical physics defying hookshot while rolling over 5 gouvernment soldiers. I would get this game even if it got 1.0, seriously)

edit: Holy ****, didn't notice the wall of text. Guess I went overboard :P

Anyway, TL;DR version:

Form your own opinion guys, scores are just the other guy's opinion, nothing more.

RavenLoud

Good post. I don't agree with everything you said, but it was a good read.

I agree that a review amounts to the other guy's opinion. But I think that a review is a more fleshed-out opinion, a different sort of approach to expressing opinion.

A person should form their own opinion. I definitely agree with that. But sometimes when one has limited funds and gameplay footage doesn't tell the whole story, reviews are a legitimate way of doing research. One should just keep their own standards in mind while reading them. That way people can avoid taking in reviews as gospel truth.

I just thought of an option that should be there. The ONE MAN U CAN TRUST!

Ben Yahtze. (Yeah I probly mispelled it but Im not gonna bother googling it)