are there game journalists that you actually DO trust?

[UltraHurricane]

or at least ones that aren't completely full of shit?

 

[Rydian]

As far as I see, the only time a source should be considered is if there's doubt whether info being given is true or not. In all the other cases, you shouldn't pay attention to who's writing articles because it introduces bias. Listen to the same person over and over and you'll either develop disdain and start treating their articles skeptically despite the content, or you'll get a soft spot for them and be more apt to believe things that don't have an actual backing.

When validity is not a concern, pay attention to the contents of the article instead.

Is it using actual quotes or paraphrasing (often incorrectly)?
Is it built off of personal experiences or hearsay?
Is there familiarity with the product/idea, or is it obvious whoever wrote it has no clue what the subject even is?
Is it based on factual occurrences that are actually a detriment, or it is just a rant?
Is the article using the proper terminology, or is it just throwing large words out to look legit?
etc.

 

[Snailface]

Metacritic is who you trust. There is less chance of error with a large sample size.

Or better yet, yourself. Play the game if you can.
Experience trumps another person's (or collective's) opinion.

 

[Blaze163]

The guy who does Zero Punctuation seems to be pretty on the ball as a whole. I also used to read NGamer for my 3DS reviews before they stopped printing.

 

[Deleted_171835]

The guy who does Zero Punctuation seems to be pretty on the ball as a whole.

He just comes across as needlessly nitpicky ragging on about minor faults in nearly every game and complaining about shit that don't matter. But that's his gimmick I guess.

 

[Blaze163]

He just comes across as needlessly nitpicky ragging on about minor faults in nearly every game and complaining about shit that don't matter. But that's his gimmick I guess.

True, but he's funny and he gets the point across whether a game is generally good or bad. I usually get a decent impression of what I'd be getting myself in for, only I get a few laughs from it too so it sticks in my mind better. He may pick nits, but don't we do the same when we play? Besides, he's a critic. Picking holes in stuff is kind of his job.

 

[McHaggis]

You can't really ever trust anyone to share exactly the same opinion as you. I'd agree that it's a good idea to check Metacritic, but even still I like to watch gameplay videos and obtain demos before laying down my hard earned cash on games I'm not 100% sold on.

 

[UltraHurricane]

He just comes across as needlessly nitpicky ragging on about minor faults in nearly every game and complaining about shit that don't matter. But that's his gimmick I guess.

and i'm pretty sure there not meant to be taken seriously either, which sadly a lot of people seem to do nowadays

 

[nachoscool]

This guy

 

[FAST6191]

Are they relaying me press releases or the games equivalents of the newswires.... sure it is done well and sometimes they even remember to refer back to old stories to give a slight narrative.

Are they attempting to be more like regular journalists.... aw look at the kids playing dress up. Are they attempting some kind of moral discussion.... aw that is fucking precious.

Are they attempting to review a game... given you can not review a game like a piece of hardware might get reviewed then tough call. As my tastes seem to fluctuate randomly with the exception of "if it is past 2002 then online multiplayer is invariably a waste of time for me" and "achievements- no thanks and make no effort in them if you are forced" then I do not expect to find someone who has tastes match mine at every moment in time, similarly I will hack a game to fix problems that prevent me from having a good time. That said if I assume films and books are reviewed properly, and that is a big assumption, then not a chance in pretty much everything I have ever seen.

Are they attempting to shine a light on some hitherto unknown facet of the games industry... never seen a dedicated games journalist do it but I have seen plenty of good articles on the matter, usually from people that just lived it. With quite a few exceptions the same probably applies to regular journalism as well so that is not so bad.

Are they attempting to teach me something like a new development and how it plays out... possibly but I will need a followup somewhere else.

E3- *commences rocking in the corner*

Choice video

 

[xist]

I used to use Metacritic until they broke it by "improving the site". Gamerankings therefore wins by default by being more functional, or at least more immediately functional. Plus it's less prone to user rating sabotage.

As for review sites....i read Eurogamer reviews/articles because they're generally really well written and relatively devoid of bias. In my view they're well above the standard of some other sites. But when it comes to actually getting a picture i read every review i can get no matter where it's from and then form an opinion. I don't use any form of video reviews because after a long time of bad internet it's not worth it and i'd rather read information than view it.

After reading reviews i'd then go and visit the game boards on gamefaqs.

(A single journalist is highly unlikely to share exactly the same opinions as you).

 

[Gahars]

I just find reviews that conform to my preconceived judgements of a game and yell at anyone who disagrees.

That's worked out pretty well for me so far.

 

[Psionic Roshambo]

I just find reviews that conform to my preconceived judgements of a game and yell at anyone who disagrees.

That's worked out pretty well for me so far.

Look hard enough and you can hear anything you want to hear... lol Pachter is living proof of this.

 

[wangtang32000]

2 things..

The key is to get to know people and trust them to be who they are. Instead, we trust people to be who we want them to be - and when they're not, we cry.

Follow your heart, but be quiet for a while first. Ask questions, then feel the answer. Learn to trust your heart.

I really don't remember who even told me that before, but I felt it was good to remember at times like this.

 

[Gnargle]

Eurogamer, RPS and PCGamer UK are always pretty solid.
NGamer is great too RIP, old friend

 

[Celice]

Sessler

Look hard enough and you can hear anything you want to hear... lol Pachter is living proof of this.

A prime example right here

 

[Taleweaver]

I'm going with Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw, though it has to be mentioned he isn't a gaming journalist but a critic. As such, his jobs somewhat complements with journalists and the developer's hype train: they build up expectations and reasons why to get the game...and Yahtzee (indirectly) tells you if that hype is justified or not.

Other than that...ngamer (the Dutch magazine) was a good source, but alas...RIP, indeed.

Finally...I'm gonna plug Kwing game reviews here. I don't have too much comparisons on games I've actually played, but I like his style: sober, to the point, and he tells both the good and the bad parts about it.

And yeah...metacritic. But that's not exactly a gaming journalist...

 

[Chary]

I trust AVGN for any reviews of games

Ngamer was good, and Metacritic is pretty alright.

 

[BORTZ]

I find that Game Trailer reviews have some pretty unbiased reviews, all in video form. After that, I usually use GameFAGs. If gamers are willing to sit down, play a game from end to end and write down detailed guides like they do, their reviews cant be off by too much.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

I could really give two shits about game reviews since it's basically an opinion and not everyone has the same one. Generally I'll use an average Metascore or read common issues of games throughout multiple reviews to judge quality before purchase but often times I purchase games that just seemed interesting.

The main thing that bothers me with games journalism is how it's just very... unprofessional. It tries to hard to play to its audience. So it'll pick news stories that will grab big headlines ("EA Rapes Kittens"). Or a lot of their video segments are often very poor pandering that's entirely reliant on the overused tropes of "gamer humor" (which is like one of the worst kinds of humor) to make people flock to them. For once I'd like to see a show or online segment that treats games like a piece of art as much as movies or television.

I'd say the best thing I've seen in terms of game reviews is Gamestation 2.0 from RedLetterMedia which unfortunately was short lived. But it had genuine game reviews tied with genuine humor that was funny because of its own jokes, not because "LOL PORTAL".

It's a sad world when people sign on iJustine for fucking anything. Literally the only reason she went anywhere is because she has a pair of tits. I don't want to see hot chicks feigning interest in video games, being prompter monkeys. I want people who have a genuine interest in the field (not an obsessive neckbeard that does nothing but play vide games way). Someone who views games for all their intricacies and judges them on all their levels. Gameplay, story, music, voice acting, environment, just everything.

But gaming will always be plagued by an awful userbase so I doubt this attitude will change for a long time.