This is not to incite Flame wars, plz don't start.

Anyway I've probably read more than I should have of NeoGaf, but I've come to trust it much more than the plethora of gaming sites that now IMO overpopulate the web.

A pretty hot topic I see come up there is how biased and inconsistiant sites or particular reviews[ers] are. Hence the poor state gaming media.



Anyway, for example checking out GT like I do normally do, a bit too frequent, I watched the holiday segments. it started fine then got wack..

The xbox one was pretty much fine

GT holiday hardware guide
huh? the Hardcore thing was kinda BS.
really the PS3 and 360 are HXC as you want to be, however I do believe that the 360 is more acessible to the 'part time' gamer because of price points. Also GT left out the PSP altogether.. lolwtf

GT ps3 holiday guide which actually seems to go to complete carp by not mentioning
the "great exculsives" such as MGS4 (imo is niche/hxc-ish), MS: Pacific-Rift,
And while leaving out multiplat GTA IV and the Last remenant, which were in the 360 guide.

Im not the only one to smell the BS, comments sniffed it out too.

IMO there is a general slant against the PS3. Aswell as the Wii, but usually you can tell for your self lol.


Anyway its not like I'm worked up over it, but its that people value these opinions for honesty. I mean it does happen in all mediums, but game review scores have become a big thing for sales and gamers opinions without playing.

What to you guys think, or have read, watched, heard. Does it matter? Do you care? Please discuss.
no need to answer ^everyone ahaha

---

Signature was too large. Read the rules.

phantom hourglass got 100s

game media is full of carp

Honestly, bias is everywhere. No matter how much a particular site or source claims they try to remain unbiased, the fact is they are humans and they are only trying to keep their subjective views out of their reviews.

Which if you ask me is a little contradictory. In game reviews, it is the reviewer's sole purpose to present their experience with the game and to weigh the pros and cons against the price -- is what you're getting in the game worth your $60? Trying to remain objective and unbiased when dealing with personal experience when playing a game seems entirely counterproductive to me. We're reading your review for a reason, and there are multiple review sites for a reason -- we want to know what a single person or group of people thought about a game.

I myself typically rely on 1up.com as far as reviews go, but they are by no means the final word for me. When I'm deciding if I should purchase a game or not, I go to 1up first to see what their editors had to say, and if the review seems dodgy (which I can safely say rarely happens) I'll surf around to a couple of other major review sites and compare them. Typically the bigger flaws in a game pop up among multiple reviews from different sources, and that's how I make my decision. For instance (I have not played this game yet so this is just an example) I think "Hmm ok, 1up, IGN and GameSpot all think that Far Cry 2 is somewhat hampered by ignorant enemy AI, silly additions like a Malaria infection and a ridiculous weapon deterioration system, yet despite all of these cons overall the game is still a great experience and deserves to be played".

That will usually lead to one of two options: I buy it or I don't buy it. Like I said, bias is everywhere and its unavoidable. I don't think its any fault of a particular site, source or reviewer, its just human nature to inject our own subjective views into things when we talk about them to others. Rather than get upset with those who are reviewing games, I say don't rely on any one particular place -- go to several and always go into every review expecting slight bias. If its pure bias, the words of the other reviews will weed it out, but if its not and its a complaint echoed throughout multiple reviews, then I think its fair to assume that its probably a valid criticism of the game.

Besides, its not like reviewers are outright lying to people. We all know about the controversy over Jeff Gerstmann and his Kane & Lynch review. The rumor being that he was fired because of complaints from the publisher over his low score, but the rumor is unsubstantiated -- it has yet to be confirmed or denied. Do I doubt that companies try to pay off journalists in an effort to sell their game? Of course not, but I'd like to think (believe, even) that those in the gaming press have enough journalistic integrity not to buy into the offer. So far I have seen that integrity most present among the 1Up staff, and that is largely why I trust them as much as I do. They are on quite a few publisher's blacklists as far as preview access goes due to their refusal to slant previews or reviews when a game isn't so good.

---

speaking of eidos

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/11/21/eidos-...elow-8-10/

Yeah Eidos is a scum publisher. I can't believe they'd sink that low. Actually, yes I can.

---

I actually have no problem with things like what Eidos is doing. They aren't paying people off to get 9\10s, and they aren't making the reviews disapear. They are a company who is trying to make money on what is likely an expensive venture. If the people who were on the fence about getting Tomb Raider Underworld , and waiting for reviews, have already likely heard about this, and if they are still on the wall they would wait until the date. In fact, that is a reason I don't like the gaming media, apparently to some it is a crime to try to keep your company afloat.

And obviously I have an issue with reviews, I proudly own 3.5\10 Dragon Ball Z: Infinite World. And I have lackluster blockbuster Lair, and Alone In The Dark. Another problem of mine with the media is the fact that people don't do reviews of games after patches. I'm sure Lair's scores would have been drastically improved had people done a re-review after the patch release. Then there is the 'copy paste' reviews for games on different platforms. Definition of lazy.

---

Project Rising Beetle→
I Miss Bionix→

I don't really trust review sites anymore, and I take each review with some salt.

I think there's always a bit of bias from the writer because they look so-and-so type of game, they prefer so-and-so gameplay, etc etc.

While I go around multiple review sites to get the basics of a game and lots of perspectives as I can, all it really comes down to is if it appeals enough to me to actually buy it. I'll ask other people's opinions as well, not just do the research on the big gaming review sites.

If I can, I'll try before I buy. I remember my martial arts teacher used to say along the lines of "books are great, but firsthand experience is better" when I told him I read up techniques in a book.

---

I actually have no problem with things like what Eidos is doing. They aren't paying people off to get 9\10s, and they aren't making the reviews disapear. They are a company who is trying to make money on what is likely an expensive venture. If the people who were on the fence about getting Tomb Raider Underworld , and waiting for reviews, have already likely heard about this, and if they are still on the wall they would wait until the date. In fact, that is a reason I don't like the gaming media, apparently to some it is a crime to try to keep your company afloat.

holy carp are you actually this stupid to defend a company that is censoring reviews of their mediocre product

Roan, while what you said is true, its not a valid excuse.
The point of news and reviews it to be objective so that the reader is informed enough to make thier own decision about the subject.

Still its hardly like bias is "police-able", but you mention journalistic integrity and I think all of these sites could use more of it.

I actually have no problem with things like what Eidos is doing. They aren't paying people off to get 9\10s, and they aren't making the reviews disapear. They are a company who is trying to make money on what is likely an expensive venture. If the people who were on the fence about getting Tomb Raider Underworld , and waiting for reviews, have already likely heard about this, and if they are still on the wall they would wait until the date. In fact, that is a reason I don't like the gaming media, apparently to some it is a crime to try to keep your company afloat.

And obviously I have an issue with reviews, I proudly own 3.5\10 Dragon Ball Z: Infinite World. And I have lackluster blockbuster Lair, and Alone In The Dark. Another problem of mine with the media is the fact that people don't do reviews of games after patches. I'm sure Lair's scores would have been drastically improved had people done a re-review after the patch release. Then there is the 'copy paste' reviews for games on different platforms. Definition of lazy.

I checked out the demo and while it was interesting, still visually and control wise its pretty poor, I can't see why you picked it up over stellar Dead Space.

=\=\=\ also and while it happens alot, eidos is in the wrong dude. carp products lose customers anyway, so lieing dosen't help.

"you can put lipstick on a pig..."
;p

I do agree that reviews should be updated,
a recent example is SOCOM: confrontation, which had , no lies, a super carp launch. a few sites have since revisted..imo its still not great (steep learning curve)

---

Signature was too large. Read the rules.

^lol, I completely forgot that Alone In The Dark: Inferno was released. I was refering to the PC version I can no longer play.

---

Project Rising Beetle→
I Miss Bionix→

I just don't visit gaming sites; I am a member on GAF for all of the news I "need". Only way to ensure no bias is there IMO

Then again, I only post in the NFL threads on GAF lmao

I generally use IGN or Gamespot to check the reviews on a game before buying it, but that's only since NOM became ONM and is now carp. =/

Anyone else think NOM was way funnier than ONM? I'd much sooner get a load of old amazing copies of NOM from ebay than sub to ONM for a year. NOM issues still make you laugh 10 years down the road.

---

~Pikachao
>Insert immaturity here.

what

[Image: nom-nom-nom.jpg]

[Image: NOMNOM.png]
NOM = Nintendo Official Magazine
ONM = Official Nintendo Magazine

NOM was the original, it was taken over by different people and it stopped being funny, and it's reviews were less reliable.

---

~Pikachao
>Insert immaturity here.

We're North American, and we call it Nintendo Power, so forgive our ignorance. A similar thing happened to US Official PlayStation Magazine, and PlayStation: The Official Magazine.

---

Project Rising Beetle→
I Miss Bionix→

PS2 rocks 4eva

PS2 rocks 4eva

what does that have to do with this topic

i dont really know LOL

(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST)