Game Reviewers/Biased

[dreamcast4ever83]

What do you think?

I noticed that when i was a kid most reviews were fair and were based on a postive point of view no a days it seems like there all negative bullshit! Like a bunch of whiny babies. I think gamers even though i hate that word have become selfish and ridiculous not to mention bias as all hell which is ok for some but not for major reviewers like IGN.

I noticed IGN always gives Mario games a 10 but Sonic games get a ridiculously low score... And I don't me semi-low, I mean low to the point where they just have a strong hate for it. Hell, Sonic Generations, which was an absolutely fantastic game, they barely squeezed in an 8.5, and I'm sure they had a hard time doing that... I think they realize that if they gave that game a bad score, people would be onto them... Guess what, dumbasses, we already are.

My point is, I'm 27 years old, and this honestly frustrates me. I remember as a kid, the point of a magazine ad, game preview, or review, wasn't meant to just be informational or critiquing, but it was meant to get you excited... And I couldn't wait to save up 50$ to rush down to the store and pick up my copy of Toe Jam & Earl Genesis game... And if the game wasn't perfect, oh well, I still tried to play through it... And still tried to find enjoyment in any game I'm playing.

Now-a-days you get 1 bad review, and 10,000 people read it, follow it, repeat it, and then next thing you know you've got 10million idiots talking about how bad a game is when they didn't even try it, but instead looked up a few reviews and decided that it sucks... Like they're professionals.... And have the nerve to call themselves gamers (Which I wish I could banish that word from the world)

I don't know how gaming went from being about fun to about being "cool."

As I noticed when I'm reading these reviews, I see things like "Well this would have been fantastic, but in level 5-6 the camera angles were slightly off. And I noticed there was a slight texture problem on his left big toe. So I'm gonna drop it from a 9.4 to 4.8."
What.

Worst of all, how are there other people out there that listen to that crap?

TL;DR: I guess things can't be like they were 16 years ago, but at the very least, instead of reading a review to decide if you want a game, why don't you just get up, go down to the store, and buy the stinkin' game. You never, you may find yourself having great fun when its not programmed into your head as a "bad game."

[BoringSupreez]

What do you think?

I noticed that when i was a kid most reviews were fair and were based on a postive point of view no a days it seems like there all negative bullshit!

Lol, no! Some of those old magazine reviews were ridiculously biased, just as bad as today's reviewers. I'd say it's actually better today, because we have access to a much wider range of reviews. Small sites, big sites, user reviews... in the old days, you might have a game only be reviewed by two magazines. And if their opinions were very different, you wouldn't know what to expect when you bought the game.

[MrNash]

Nah, there were plenty of biased reviewers in the past too. You're just an adult now who thinks a lot more critically, and who is far more inclined to call into question these reviews. I remember Ed Semrad from EGM constantly being pro-Sega, or Martin Alessi generally scoring shmups higher than everyone else. Bias has always been in game reviews.

[dreamcast4ever83]

I see your point and agree with you in ways. You are right there has always been bias i guess with reviewers but as for it being worse back then? I half to disagree. today there are way more outlets for media and the internet which now its shoved in your face way more. also since games have advanced they are criticized far more then they should be.

not to mention they try to re-review older games with todays standard which is so unfair! look up sonic adventure when it first came out and then today.(which was a fantastic game) so much fun bad angles and all!

At least back then it was more simple and other then tv commercials really if you did not buy a gamer magazine you did not here as much about it.

not to mention i still fell magazines are nicer then online reviews written and video...hell you don't even half to even buy a game to know everything that happens today, just hop on the web and everything is there. Back in the day you had to play the game to know.

sometimes the bad in a game is actually what makes it good i have found. And i like imperfections such as graphics and angles and bad dialog i think it is what gives a game character. like resident evil was fantastic we were just happy to have realism and voices in games today the slightest bad acting is scrutinized

so while i agree people have always been bias i fell back then it was far more simple and easier to forgive and i sill fell gamers of today are very spoiled and everyone thinks there a pro. I honestly don't see how you could think it was worse back then but were all entitled to our opinions and i appreciated your imput

but i honestly fell people today dismiss a game before ever giveing it a chance due to bad reviews.

[dreamcast4ever83]

More does not always mean better.

[Bradtemple87]

Ign has really gotten under my skin lately. Every review insists on using an elitist tone and an abundance of overly descriptive language.

"Look at our use of fancy words" ...blah blah blah... low score

Metacritic can show us something. Games released recently may be middle of the road, but Ign is far below competitors scores.

[Cronozilla]

Biased reviews were ALL that existed back when these things started. Most were started as ad machines by manufacturers. However, that lent them a certain charm. I mean, there was something really fun about the first Nintendo Powers and Sega Magazine. You KNEW it was ran by Nintendo, you KNEW their opinions weren't always in the most objective of light, but in general, you really got a good fill of information mixed with opinion on many games you otherwise might not have heard about.

The tone of those things were optimistic. Almost all reviews now are entirely negative. It's either overtly praising, or overtly negative and nitpicking. There just isn't any middle ground anymore.

Raging against the video-game-journalism-man:

I have a few enormous gripes about IGNs style. A) They try to talk like they know how games work ... they don't. They think everything is a texture resolution problem (but ignore many instances when there actually is one) B) They review on the basis of what they wanted the game to be. NOT on what it actually delivers. I'm tired of seeing reviews of, "Oh this game really could have been like this, but it isn't, therefore I don't like it", it's entirely nonsensical from a journalistic perspective. There is NO abstract review of games on that site. and C) If there's a title that's popular and did something similar to a title they're reviewing (that isn't some mega-huge franchise) they'll constantly draw comparisons, even if they're not similar at all. I can't even recollect how many time's I've read them say something like, "the game does this, but *Mega-Huge Release From Last Year* already did this". It's like they can't enjoy a single game that doesn't have a $200 Mil. marketing budget for what it is.

It really pisses me off. They just can't objectively review anything. They just talk about if they liked it or not. Which isn't the same thing as arguing the technical quality and artistic value of a specific title.

I'd also say the modern aspect of using ill-defined generalities and phrases to definitively describe something pisses me right off. They (and every single major game reviewer out there) just use gaming community buzzwords to fill in their explanations because their vocabulary is so positively desolate. It's freaking ridiculous.

I suppose, what I'm really bitching about here, though, is the shift in modern gaming community. Because that's what mostly affects game journalism. So a bias forms against games that their target audience doesn't really care for (The target audience of GameTrailers appears to be 18-25 year old men who only fanatically play Xbox 360 shooters, for example. Therefore, anything Nintendo oriented is automatically viewed in a light of skepticism.)

At the very least ... back in the day, with the first party mags ... most of them were at least respectful of other available platforms (well sega wasn't), but even in Nintendo Power, the people running that magazine really did just love video games. They'd mention other systems very often and always in a favorable light. Now things are entirely different.

These kids today .... Uh oh.

But, I do agree ... I really do miss the less biased independent magazine-esque reviews of yore. At the very least, the respect is gone, and that makes me sad. To note, I'm not talking about if there's some trash talk against a miserable failed garbage platform, like the Game-com. I'm talking about platform, genre, developer, etc bias bashing. It just pisses me off. It wouldn't be so bad if they were just upfront about it. Not publishing their reviews under the guise of some actual insight which is just a front for an opinion forcing agenda.

[flex wood]

Ign has really gotten under my skin lately. Every review insists on using an elitist tone and an abundance of overly descriptive language.

"Look at our use of fancy words" ...blah blah blah... low score

Metacritic can show us something. Games released recently may be middle of the road, but Ign is far below competitors scores.

I don't really pay attention to ign but weren't they always rating every other game super high up until fairly recently? I mean I kind of just think that people realize that they can get more coverage for their site by rating games lower. Look at what happened with destructoid after giving gears of war 3 I think it was an 8. That got their website a ton of coverage.

But on the flip side of that coin look at how many sites rate games super high and leave out tons of flaws and glitches found in games. Skyrim and the silent hill collection spring to mind right away. I am more offended by that then anything. I want to call it false advertising but these review sites aren't owned by any video game company so it isn't.

[dreamcast4ever83]

Amen to that

[Erik_Twice]

not to mention they try to re-review older games with todays standard which is so unfair!

What would be unfair would be using different standards for a game because it is older. Quality is quality, and it would be unfair to negate the advancements made in the field or to say that The Rocket is the best locomotive ever made because there was nothing like it in 1829.

Anyways, the goal of most review sites is to sell games to a specific audience by telling them how cool and edgy they are. This explains the "more like random shooter collection, lol" phrases, the cynisim and obvious praise and lack of criticism, both positive and negative.

I have found that many people do not look at reviews to learn about how good something is, but to confirm their choice.


@Cronozilla

There have always been good, unbiased magazines. Micromania, a Spanish magazine, born in 1985 comes to mind. I'm sure others can name more.