Where do you get your reviews?

[slam23]

Nothing beats actually playing the game and forming your own opinion. But before spending 45$ on a top game, I really like to get some reviews under my belt. A lot of sites/mags get bad press for not being unpartial or hyping up certain games for which they may get money. I don't know about that, but I'm really interested in where you get your best reviews. List your favorite mags/sites/metasites!

Beside the obvious and mostly excellent RPGdot/watch reviews, I myself check Gamerankings and Metacritic, and I'm also a Gamespotter from way back (Desslock ruled the RPG universe back then). Mags don't come in heaps in Holland, the most decent one is actually German: PC Games. They have an elaborate reviewing system that is somewhat over the top but it is thorough and I do tend to agree with them.

[Gorath]

The best review sites IMHO are:

Eurogamer.net (http://www.eurogamer.net) (UK) and Yiya.de (http://www.yiya.de) (Germany).
Eurogamer is unbiased and not afraid to use the whole scale. A 7 or 8 there is an honorable score.
Yiya writes highly detailed reviews. I don´t always agree with their score, but it´s clear their reviewer played the game for a long time and gives reasons why he thinks it deserves a certain rating. They´re one of the few sites who treat smaller games fair.

[Moriendor]

I prefer to make up my own mind and get my "reviews" from playing a demo version whenever possible ;) . In the rare event that a demo is not available, I usually check out a few random reviews that are posted on (well, or linked to from) Blue's News (http://www.bluesnews.com/), Voodoo Extreme (http://ve3d.ign.com/)and -of course- RPG Watch (if it is an RPG). Sites that deserve a little more credibility than others IMHO are Eurogamer (http://www.eurogamer.net/), GamersInfo (http://www.gamersinfo.net/) and GameSpot (http://www.gamespot.com/).
I prefer a larger sample size than just those sites though so I sometimes randomly check whatever is on Blue's or VE... from reviews on sites like Wicked Toast to the big ones like IGN/GameSpy.
When you're done checking a few small site and a few big site reviews, then you usually have a pretty good grasp of a game's quality. If you're in a hurry, even just comparing the strengths/weaknesses or positive/negative bullet point lists helps a lot since there will frequently be a pattern across several reviews.
Luckily there's almost always a demo available though so I don't really read that many reviews to be honest ;) .

[nameless hero]

when it comes to reviews, I read them all, and when they are good reviews i will probably not like the game. When they are bad reviews, I will probably like the game.
E.g Halo had good reviews, and it was an incredibly bad game, IMHO.
Doom3 ppl said was incredibly boring, but I think it was the best FPS ever!

[txa1265]

Given that I review a lot of games, I try to avoid reviews when I think I'll be reviewing a game. That conflicts somewhat since I write a 'This Week in Games' column for GamerDad as well ...

But when I want to know about a game, I'll head to GameRankings or Metacritic and open 4 - 6 reviews from diverse sources and read them in their entirety. From there I can get enough flavor to anticipate if I'm likely to enjoy the game.

[Corwin]

Knowing the reviewer is just as important as where the review is located. I avoid the big sites, but even places I rarely visit like the Codex, often have excellent reviews if you understand the bias of the writer!!

[roguefrog]

I almost never read reviews. I just gaze at gamerankings for a laugh IE comparing IGN's super inflated score with the next guy. If I read a review, it's either from a magazine, usually CGW, or from a site someone linked to. The Codex reviews are a rarity, but I'll usually read them for the jaded hardcore angle. They're much more critical of any faults.

[VPeric]

I rarely read reviews, and if I do, it's something from a local magazine over here. I prefer to rely on forums and such, and what people said there.

[Fenris]

I have to admit that I prefer the reviews on RPG-Codex ;) - with the Reviews of the RPG-Watch Staff close second.

The major Sites and Magazines are for the Console- and/or casual Player... I play Computer-Games for twenty Years now, I really don't care about Interfaces, Graphics or a Learning-Curve (or Patrick Steward^^) ... Gameplay and Atmosphere are the only important Things for me... and while I get a lot of good Information here, I agree more to the Preferences of the Codex.

[Kawika]

Aside from the obligatory RPGWatch and MMORPG.com ;) , my favorite review sources are PC Gamer magazine and X-Play on G4TV.

[Cm]

I depend highly on the reviews from the staff here. The staff here seem to be very closely tuned to my tastes. I will play a demo when available, and then hit sites like pc gamer.

[Danicek]

http://www.jolt.co.uk/

Oh, well.... :D

[ToddMcF2002]

I find it is almost impossible to trust RPG reviews - because the reviewers often fall into typical categories:

1. Impatient FPS'ers who dislike RPGs trying to review an RPG so its doomed from the getgo.

2. FPS'ers who can't believe they have choices beyond weapon slots gush uncontrollably (aka most Oblivion reviews).

3. Action RPG'ers that think diablo is an RPG and everything else it soo slow.

4. Jaded RPG'ers who think having a quest log and side quests that take less than 50 hours means its too linear and has way too much hand holding. "you little whipper snappers never played a real RPG like the good old Gold Box games!"

But other times you get a good review - like Gamespots very balanced review of Temple Of Elemental Evil. They gave it a 7.6 which given the bugs is dead on. If I had to pick a trusted source though I'd say PC Gamer. They had the balls to choose Gothic 2 over Morrowind as the best RPG in its day.

[txa1265]

I find it is almost impossible to trust RPG reviews - because the reviewers often fall into typical categories:

Sadly I think that RPG's get a better shake than anything but FPS and RTS on the PC. Other genres - especially non-action - really get shafted because there are very few reviewers who would *choose* to play kids games or Nancy Drew or (non-console) platformers and so on. That is true on most systems.

The only good thing is that you can generally read the bias in the first paragraph ... I write a column called 'This Week In Games' where I summarize the review 'flavor' for the previous week's releases, so I read lots o'crap from people with no interest in reviewing the games they're tasked with reviewing, such as:

I should probably preface this review with an important piece of information: I am probably not the target audience for Shamu’s Deep Sea Adventures. Some 7-year old kid that’s obsessed with jellyfish, whales, and mindblowingly simplistic gameplay might love this title. Personally, I’ve had more fun doing laundry.
And this treasure from the kid's game "Stuart Little 3":
I could quote that dirty-talking niggah who saw the light in Pulp Fiction but that feels cheap. That does mean I am fucked because what he said, was supposed to be the central core op this paragraph. Were was I? Oh yeah, they used dogs because our four footed friends have personality while mice are filthy, pest-spreading parasites. Before you start defending them: they don’t have a sphincter so they let it go whenever, wherever! Mankind has always detested mice while they liked dogs. Even an animal-lover like myself can see this realistically: the only good mouse, is a dead mouse.

Wonderful ...

[ToddMcF2002]

Hey mike is that "Stuart Little 3" review from Codex? LOL

[Corwin]

Nah, couldn't be; they wouldn't be able to spell 'sphincter' correctly!! :biggrin:

[Maylander]

I don't read a whole lot of reviews, but when I do it's usually from http://www.gamer.no, a Norwegian site. Also, Eurogamer previously mentioned has better reviews than most.

[txa1265]

You can usually tell if a game will be crap like that Mage Apocalypse.
Sometimes there are gems that look like they'll be crap ... but usually they *are* like MK:A ;)

[Corwin]

I do agree that a demo is an excellent tool for selling a 'good' game!! Sometimes I'm suspicious of companies which don't offer a demo for a new title.

[xSamhainx]

I generally hit Gamespot first, then go to their "other reviews" spot on the gamespace and there's usually a mess of them there w/ their scores like so-

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/neverwinternights2/review.html?mode=web

Then i do a search on the title itself, and if there's any links that havent been hit i'll perhaps hit them.

[Gorath]

Gamespot is one of the sites I usually take with a grain of salt because they are "professional". How long can somebody play a game, make screenshots and write an article if he gets (I guess) a few hundred bucks and has to make a living from it? Playing a shooter for 5-10 hours could be okay, but for a RPG it´s not enough.

[xSamhainx]

I take all reviews with a degree of skepticism and a wary tiger eye, that's just me. If you dont like Gamespot's reviews, like I said, they usually have built up a hub of reviews by other sites with the ranking shown so you can sail to the worst ones if you like, which is what I usually do. Player reviews and forum can be helpful as well.


I like Gamespot, Ive been a subscriber for years and have gotten to know all their diff reviewers. It's a general gaming site so yeah, they may not be as in-depth with the RPGs as a dedicated site, but that's all taken into consideration!

[LordRac]

I usually go to Metacritic (http://www.metacritic.com/games/pc/) for a good collection of reviews. They keep the site pretty up to date.

[txa1265]

I usually go to Metacritic (http://www.metacritic.com/games/pc/) for a good collection of reviews. They keep the site pretty up to date.
What I like about them compared to GameRankings is that they have little blurbs from each review. But then GameRankings has a more comprehensive listing ...

[LordRac]

Yes I forgot about GameRankings, that's another good one. The blurbs from Metacritic are great for a laugh once in a while, like the reviews for Bad Day L.A. :)