Just watched X-Play and learned that Konami has been asking reviewers of MGS4 to.. um... not mention certain things. Like characters, cutscene lengths, and other parts of the game that they don't want us to know about. I also learned that other game companies have been asking reviewers to hold off on publishing bad reviews until the game is released. What in the... ?!?

At least Electronic Gaming Monthly is going the full disclosure route in MSG4.

I usually watch X-Play because so far I've had a lot of fun with the games they've suggested.

I tend to read various reviews. I don't trust any single review source when making a buying decision and I prefer to see what people say is wrong with a game rather than what they enjoyed. That gives a better idea of what to expect than people gushing over a game. I also tend to read more player reviews than professional reviews. They don't have the pressure from corporate sponsors.

Yahtzee. Yahtzee and only Yahtzee. He's the only reviewer I've found who I actually agree with. Even when I like a game and he doesn't, I can see why. I rent before I buy anyway, because I'm not completely stupid.

Like isukun, I tend to look at a wide variety of reviews before I buy a game - however, like with any review, I tend to take it with a grain of salt. Especially since my taste in games is a little weird.

Custard Trout, to trust only one reviewer is risky enough... but for that one reviewer to be Yahtzee?! He'll take a dump on a perfectly reasonable game just for the page hits. That's how his system works. The meaner he is to a game, the more people enjoy him... so he drowns his reviews with insults and hyperbole for our own enjoyment. He's more of a comedy act than a review. I trust him as much as I trust those two old muppets on the balcony.

What's that? A reviewer is being negative!? He's only doing it for the page hits! It's just his opinion! He's an idiot! Games are still good! Honest, they are!

While I do agree with Hawk that Yahtzee treats things more negatively than necessary because he reviews games primarily as a humorist as opposed to a "professional reviewer", I also find that his points always make sense, even if they are nitpicky or weird.

You're right, he is pretty good at finding flaws in games, even if those flaws aren't always a big deal.

Custard Trout
Yahtzee. Yahtzee and only Yahtzee. He's the only reviewer I've found who I actually agree with. Even when I like a game and he doesn't, I can see why. I rent before I buy anyway, because I'm not completely stupid.

enjoy your gimmick.

Incisive as a scalpel Myxo ^_^

I only look at Lord Shplane's reviews. No one else. He really is all you need.




As long as you follow the exact opposite of his recommendations. :)

Lonnehart
Just watched X-Play and learned that Konami has been asking reviewers of MGS4 to.. um... not mention certain things. Like characters, cutscene lengths, and other parts of the game that they don't want us to know about.

Whats wrong with that? MGS is a heavily plot driven game. Its the same as film critics not revealing details about the new Batman movie before you go to see it. They can still review the quality of the product without giving away the surprises.

Lets say, hypothetically, you helped create Final Fantasy VII. And before anyone plays the game, a review comes out that includes, "I hate how Aeris dies half way through the game." You might be, understandably, pretty pissed that ruined that plot point for the people who are going to get your game.

All that being said, yes there is some bad mojo with game reviews. I tend to go with metacritc.com for movies and games and everything. You can usually seperate out how good something is with that. It gives you a broad enough picture to make your own decision to where your expectations should be.

Well, outside of professional reviews, with any fan-review I tend to prefer to read any one that gives a game a 6-8 out of 10; the 10/10 guys are usually crazy obsessed with the game, and the 5-1/10 guys are usually just being bitchy because they're tired of other people ranting about how a game they hate is awesome. Exceptions exist; like, with games that just actually are bad enough to warrant a very low review. Anyway, the point is that the 6-8/10 guys are usually the more level-headed ones who can accurately describe both the good and bad points of a game. But like I said, there's no real "rules", so it's best just to read a few reviews.

kingofsnake
Whats wrong with that? MGS is a heavily plot driven game. Its the same as film critics not revealing details about the new Batman movie before you go to see it. They can still review the quality of the product without giving away the surprises.

Lets say, hypothetically, you helped create Final Fantasy VII. And before anyone plays the game, a review comes out that includes, "I hate how Aeris dies half way through the game." You might be, understandably, pretty pissed that ruined that plot point for the people who are going to get your game.

All that being said, yes there is some bad mojo with game reviews. I tend to go with metacritc.com for movies and games and everything. You can usually seperate out how good something is with that. It gives you a broad enough picture to make your own decision to where your expectations should be.

I think what he was talking about was fishy for a different reason. All developers ask that reviewers avoid giving away spoilers. But Konami was asking reviewers to withhold information that was not spoilers, but information that could potentially turn players away from getting the game.

This would be like the Lair devs asking reviewers to no mention how awful the controls are, or Nintendo telling them not to mention lag in Smash Bros.' online play. It would be unethical to hide this information, so developers typically don't ask reviewers to do so.

However, I find it silly that Konami wanted cutscene lengths hidden. I mean, by now fans of the game are prepared for long cutscenes. They're gonna buy it anyway, even if one of the cutscenes is 90 minutes long.

However, I find it silly that Konami wanted cutscene lengths hidden. I mean, by now fans of the game are prepared for long cutscenes. They're gonna buy it anyway, even if one of the cutscenes is 90 minutes long.

True, but I think they still wanted to avoid the problem they ran into last time with reviewers exaggerating the length of the cutscenes. Unfortunately, it happened again with this game where two reviewers claimed there were cutscenes that closed in on the 90 minute mark, a claim that other reviewers as well as Konami themselves have debunked. According to Konami, the only cutscene that even comes close to that length is the ending, and even then 90 minutes is a "gross exaggeration." It doesn't bother me so much that Konami would try to prevent some reviewers from talking out of their asses on a game like this, and quite frankly, this kind of thing is more common in the professional game reviewing world than people think. Reviewers just tend to downplay it until it happens with high profile games on a system that it's currently "in" to hate. That's why I tend to prefer player reviews over professional.

I used to read Gamefan like the gaming bible. Alas my gods are dead.

Terminal
enjoy your gimmick.

Thank you, I do enjoy my 'gimmick' that has never led me to waste money on a game I don't like.

thats cool bro.

I too like Yahtzee, but I do not rely on his opinion when I buy my games, because if I did, I would never buy any game ever again.

He likes plenty of games. Get the hell over it.

None of them. They all suck.

Meh, if I see a game that looks good, I buy it.
That's pretty much it.

Although Avalon comics tells me to buy games. Then I do.

*shrugs*

Custard Trout
He likes plenty of games. Get the hell over it.

I never said that he didn't (like games) I was mearly commenting on the satirical and negative way that he reviews things. An example of this "It's true, I didn't like Brawl even before I played it, but then the same is true about every game, object, animal and human being I encounter these days."

I win! YAY!!!

No, he was saying that he automatically has low expectations of everything he encounters.

You know, it's funny... If I continually had low expectations for everything, I'd be a really happy person. I would like a lot more things.

Not if you also had high standards.

I guess that's probably true.

I go to several reviewing places to get a general feel. I tend to like games that are either ranked high or low depending on the person (like the .hack//G.U. series). I also don't care too much about numerical scores. I prefer to just read the review, because oft times, the reviewer will reveal if they were too easy or harsh on a game in their review (like all the people who mentioned that GTA IV had problems but still gave it a 10/10 :\ ).