Generally, I've given up on game reviews. A lot of them seem biased, pushing a specific angle. And who knows how many are bought off forthe reviews of "AAA" games. I'm much more interested in fellow gamer impressions than some PR-esque review babble.

Journalism has lost its integrity as well. It's hard to find a preview or a decent article that is unbiased or discusses an original premise with well thought-out arguments. Journalists are on the payroll of a lot of game companies, I think it's pretty clear.

With recent review quotes like these:

IGN review of Halo 4 said:

"Halo 4 is a masterstroke everyone can and should celebrate, and its two guaranteed sequels instantly make the next-generation Xbox a must-own system, with Halo 5 its most anticipated title."

Hardcore Gamer review of Assassin's Creed III said:

"Assassin’s Creed III is one of those rare games conceived to be revolutionary from the beginning. Games like this only come around once in a generation. One of the most, if not the most, ambitious titles ever created. An inspiring testament to what can be accomplished with unbridled devotion, it’s possible that nothing of this magnitude will ever be attempted again. It’s a truly definitive event that will be looked-back as a crucial step in gaming evolution."

and this:



...do you still take video game journalism seriously?

URL to share (right click and copy)

@NinSage
I honestly don't think Giant Bomb is biased against Wii or Nintendo, Jeff admits that he doesn't like motion controls and he doesn't play Wii much but that's just his personal preference and he freely admits that on the Bombcast or Bonus Round or whatever. There's no policy to trash Nintendo games and give them bad reviews though, on the rare occasion they do choose to review a Nintendo game they're often very positive, Theatre Rhythm is the most recent game they reviewed and it got a 4/5. Rhythm Heaven scored a 5/5 and Skyward Sword scored a 4/5, Resident Evil Revelations scored a 3/5 and that seems fair to me (even though I like that game). If anything they just don't cover Nintendo that much because it's not relevant to their taste, it seems like each editor can pretty much just decide what they want to cover and most of the time it's PC games like StarCraft II, Dishonored, or X-Com that get the lion's share of the attention. They're not a comprehensive review site like IGN or Gamespot and they don't pretend to be.

Oh my gosh, that image is so spot on. I do not trust any sponsored reviewers, it seems to always breed bribed reviews and half-ass attempts.

NinSage said:

@Xbob42
Oh boy. It was the "don't buy it" part that was key. The Wii bit is only important because of the effort level put in to the review.

It wasn't a review, though. It was first impressions. The first impression the game offered was "don't buy it, poorly made." Quick Looks are absolutely not reviews.

NinSage said:

Lastly, I try to avoid discussions with folks who can't muster the respect or self-control to avoid calling the thoughts of others "fucking retarted." We can avoid the ad homonym going forward, right?

One, I said "retarded," not "retarted," and two, "everyone's out to get the Wii!" is not a "thought," it's a paranoid delusion. Yeah, there's sites and people that don't like the Wii, there's sites and people that don't like either the PS3 or 360, too, the PC is mocked on most sites. It doesn't mean I go out of my way looking for shit like this:



It's not an attack on you personally, it's an attack on this idea that Wii owners need to constantly be suspicious of any site that ever says anything negative about a Wii game. I mean shit, look at all the links I had over them fucking GUSHING over Wii things!

LOOK AT THIS HARDCORE BIAS!

@deathly_hallows
@Xbob42

We don't need to all agree about Giant Bomb. So if you guys get fair coverage from them, that's cool. Now, isolated examples aside, if you guys haven't noticed a general trend of disrespect towards Nintendo from popular gaming "journalists" then I envy you. But many of us certainly have. Which is why "Nintendo bashing is in another castle" on this site. And also why I lost a lot of faith in game journalism... as the thread's topic refers.

I expect equality from professional journalism. A shoot-from-the-hip, blog-style of coverage does not absolve these outlets of the responsibility that comes with A) getting paid and B) having thousands of people use you for information. Nintendo = Sony = MS. That's the overall goal. Specific evaluations? That's fine. Editorializing? That's fine if it's identifiable. Advertising GameTrailers as a "PS3, Xbox 360 and PC" gaming site during an Epic Mickey 2 reveal? No cool.

I'm doing other things so I can't watch that video of the PC guy, but I'm going to assume he's not a big, popular game media outlet.

Sorry for the typo. It happens

You should still find a nice way to say the things that you are trying to say.

NinSage said:

@deathly_hallows
@Xbob42if you guys haven't noticed a general trend of disrespect towards Nintendo from popular gaming "journalists" then I envy you.

I don't go to "popular gaming journalists." IGN is worthless for any sort of decent coverage, Gamespot is garbage, and most other sites aren't even worth the effort to look at. It's not that they hate Nintendo, it's that they're all fucking garbage, as this thread shows. So who cares what most of them say? Just like most news networks are garbage. Filter out the trash and find the gold.

@Zero Man, I ain't your grandma or a 12-year old girl and neither are you!

Actually, in a funny twist, Zero IS his own grandma. Oh, the perils of experimental drugs and time-travel...

Where's JKR when you need a crazy comic written?!

Zero said:

You should still find a nice way to say the things that you are trying to say.

+1

Respectful discourse is what makes any internet forum great. Which is why they are so very rare.

@Xbob42 So only grandmas and 12 year olds can speak kindly to other people? Ok.

@Guillaume Hey, Fry did it in Futurama. No wait, he isn't his own grandmother, he had sex with his own grandmother. And became his own grandfather.

Zero said:

@Xbob42 So only grandmas and 12 year olds can speak kindly to other people? Ok.

When have you ever known me to be... kind?

Well, there is probably somewhere in between kind and jerky worth shooting for.

Sigh... For you, Zero. Only for you, I'll try.

What the heck!?

I just saw a commercial for Halo 4..and my TV melted!!

I have gone to IGN I think once for a review, and that was for Fez and it was the best choice I ever made. But generally I don't make decisions based on one review. If it is a video review and I get to see the gameplay and figure out if I will enjoy it, normally I do it on that review + background info.

Video Game journalism needs to move away from reviews and more towards more insightful and thought provoking topics to do with gaming.

More evidence that large game media outlets (aka "journalists") are too frightened by their rabid, "hardcore" audience:

Modern Game Reviews Scale:

> 9.5 = great
9.0 - 9.4 = good
8.0 - 8.9 = meh
7.0 - 7.9 = bad
< 6.9 = unplayable

In other words, the sacrifice all their informative power but condensing the scales to near useless state. Why? So they don't get boycotted when Gears of Skyrim 5 earns a 7.2 due to all the game-crushing bugs. So, on the new scale, a 7.2 translates to roughlyyyy.... 8.7!

@NinSage Giant Bomb uses a 5-star system because a hundred point scale is useless to everyone but crazy people. ;P

It's not so high profile games can get high scores, though.

Their 5 star review scale is useless to me, especially since they gave a 2 to a game that states "Everything about this nice-looking, mostly online shooter is cumbersome and unpleasant to deal with in one way or another" in other words, a 2 means near unplayable garbage. So they basically only have 3 scores they can give to games worth looking at?

What I do like is that it shows the scores of everyone in the comments who has scored the games as well. I'm planning on doing that at Negative World, just never got around to it.

/EDIT Oh wait, no it doesn't do that, it was just showing user reviews. Well, I'm planning on doing it.

Zero said:

Their 5 star review scale is useless to me, especially since they gave a 2 to a game that states "Everything about this nice-looking, mostly online shooter is cumbersome and unpleasant to deal with in one way or another" in other words, a 2 means near unplayable garbage. So they basically only have 3 scores they can give to games worth looking at?

The score told me exactly what it needed to. 2/5 IS garbage. In any media. It's not as bad as it gets. But it's close. 3 stars means it's average at best. They do use their entire scale. But it's about the review itself, they wanted to get rid of the scores entirely but that's insane to do because people like you guys eat scores for breakfast as though they actually have some kind of value.

They do have real value though, but see, the value is not that they hold some kind of inherent truth or anything (this game IS a 7.9!), it is that they can be used by readers, and people like me learn how to use scores to, ultimately, end up making fairly consistently valuable purchases. You can't deny the value of that, because it definitely works for me, and it works for others. I mean, you can try to deny the value of that, but then you're just self-centered and can't acknowledge that people find working value in things that you do not.