least valid/trustful game reviewer (magazine/website)

[pragmatic insanester]

when it comes to the actual quality of a game, what source do you think has the least credible opinion of reviewing?

[THATinkjar]

EuroGamer. By a mile. I *hate* them.

[Fuyukaze]

To be honest, I think every single mag in print curently is biased with little to no integrety when it comes to reviews. Lets face it, they are in it to stay in buisness. Staying in buisness means getting review coppies in time to have them be both effective and relavent. How can any mag do that if the game companies refuse to send you preview copies in advance? If they continue to bash the games of any companies, they eventualy dont recieve them in time. Plus, advertisment is a key issue as well. These days I wonder if a dart board with the names of curent released titles would be a better form of review. It atleast would be completely unbiased for the most part. Atleast untill you began to get good at darts.

[Graham Mitchell]

EGM. Here we go again. (raises shields.)

[SoulBlazer]

I don't read gaming magazines anymore.

As for websites? The favorite site I use -- and pretty much the ONLY one -- is GameSpot. 95 percent of the time I agree with their reviews on games fully. Since I almost never use anything else, I guess everyone else is on the list of 'not useable'. ;)

[Griking]

I have a hard time trusting any review in Nintendo Power or any other official magazine. I find it hard to believe that they're going to be unbiased.

[Speedy_NES]

GameSpot.com - I disagree with a lot of their reviews...and if you compare them to other reviews such as by IGN, the same differences can usually be found. Of course not for all games, but for quite a few. The "hot" titles usually receive somewhat biased reviews that are relative to other reviews from other sites, and when it comes to more lesser known titles GameStop seems to put no effort into actually cognitively reviewing the game. I know others that feel the same way that I do about their reviews, so I'm not the only one.

-Speedy

[Crush Crawfish]

The only magazine worth reading nowadays is Play, IMO. It actually feels like a magazine that was written for gamers, by gamers. The others cater far too much to the casual gamer for my tastes.

Least credible, I'd have to say would be Gamepro. It just feels like it was written for the 12 and under crowd, and its reviews are usually tiny and uninformative.

Game Informer is pretty bad too...let's not forget that Paper Mario 2 fiasco. "It's just not that good a game." Yeeeeeaaaah. Whatever helps you sleep at night, Mr. GI writer. :roll:

[SuperNES]

most magazines seem okay to me, and i never read reviews online, but the worst TV show by far is judgement day. tommy allarico is the dumbest idiot EVER. his reviews go something like this:

well ,this games has terrible graphics, but whatever. it has really cool explosions, and you can blow EVERYTHING up! it also has terrible gameplay, but when you get shot, the controller vibrates, and that will be useful when i stick the controller IN MY PANTS!!!! HAHAHA i give it a eight point five!!!
that other semi-normal guy: ha ha that was funny. i'm gonna give it a 7.5.
tommy: WEEEELLL i see we don't quite agrEEEEE.... OH WELL! hahaha!

[SoulBlazer]

Everything you said negative about GameSpot I'd say about IGN and GameSpy (shudders).

Every time I read one of their reviews -- EVERY TIME -- for a game I've played a lot of, I find myself nodding my head all the way through the review in agreement. Now, I don't go there for games that I have'nt played -- if I want just scores, I hit up GameFAQ where you can see reader reviews and proffesional review scores all on the same page.

[Cmosfm]

most magazines seem okay to me, and i never read reviews online, but the worst TV show by far is judgement day. tommy allarico is the dumbest idiot EVER. his reviews go something like this:

well ,this games has terrible graphics, but whatever. it has really cool explosions, and you can blow EVERYTHING up! it also has terrible gameplay, but when you get shot, the controller vibrates, and that will be useful when i stick the controller IN MY PANTS!!!! HAHAHA i give it a eight point five!!!
that other semi-normal guy: ha ha that was funny. i'm gonna give it a 7.5.
tommy: WEEEELLL i see we don't quite agrEEEEE.... OH WELL! hahaha!

Oh man, don't forget, if it's made by Nintendo, has Mario in it, or it's even remotely kid friendly, it's getting a very low rating.

Worst reviewer ever, Tommy "f'n dumbass" Tallarico

[MegaDrive20XX]

EGM....Where's Sushi X when you need him the most? Where's the balance?

GameSpot.....kill them...please

IGN...I will hunt them down one of these days...

Game Informer.. I don't care much for...very biased...especially when trying to do "Retro Reviews" during the last few pages of the magazine

Nintendo Power...sad people...biased as well

[zmweasel]

Worst reviewer ever, Tommy "f'n dumbass" Tallarico

Tommy's a very nice, very humble, and very knowledgeable guy in person. His TV persona is a character, meant to get a reaction out of people, and it works perhaps too well. :)

-- Z.

[Cryomancer]

Really? I can't decide if that should make me dislike him more, or less.

[Famidrive-16]

guyz i h8 [magazine] becuz they did'nt liek finul fantazy XVI/

I don't really care anymore, all my magazine subscriptions to EGM, OPM and Nintendo Power expired last year, since I was too lazy to resubscribe.

NP of course is biased because, well, it's for Nintendo games duuurrrhhh. It seems the past couple years though it's given any Nintendo published/developed game high scores, no matter how mediocore they are. In the 90's they actually slammed down some of their own games. Also, while I hate using this term for Nintendo, they turned ultra-kiddy during Pokemon's success. Yeah, I want a ten-page strategy guide on the newest Arthur GBC game. :roll: Still, they wrote some good content, and I had fun trying out the different challenges in the Arena section.

This is gonna sound weird but OPM wasn't very biased. Hell, they were the most unbiased magazine compared to NP in my eyes. After a while they just started to seem to be putting filler articles in that I didn't care about.

I like EGM even though it seems tilty at times. Sushi might've been the fighting game God but I didn't care too much if he appeared or not. I liked the little gaming tidbits they put in each issue.

[PDorr3]

to tell you the truth I really do not care how biased or unbiased reviewers are, its their view on the game, and if they hate nintendo so be it. You read their reviews so obviously you care somewhat on what they have to say.

I read all reviews, especialy IGN and Gamespot. While I may not agree often with what they have to say, its an opinion on a game that while they might be bothered by it, the same situation might not be so bothersome to me.

While there are getting to be tons of "nintendo is kiddy" refrences, ESPECIALY in EGM, I do not let it bother me that much becuase I myself as a gamer know that nintendo is not just intended for kids...

[mark1bdi]

If I want to buy a game I check Gamespot. Most of the time their generous reviewing (Tony Hawks 3 10/10??!??!) gives me the incentive I need. If I am skint check what Edge have to say.

Gamerankings can sometimes be a deciding factor as well. Other than the pile of overmarked US sports titles (NCAA College Sports Football Cheerleading 2032 - 9/10) it is usually close.

Mark :>

[Fuyukaze]

zmweasel wrote-

Tommy's a very nice, very humble, and very knowledgeable guy in person. His TV persona is a character, meant to get a reaction out of people, and it works perhaps too well. :)

Ya dont say! Well, even I cant stand em as more often then not I spend most of my times thinking he's an idiot. Some of his antics have driven me to the conclusion that the name Tommy must be Italian for retard. I guess the fiasco works because I cant stand watching a show he's on. You may have found your experiences with him to make him nice, humble, and knowledgable, but the presentation he gives on TV makes him look ignorant, rude, and basicly an ass to me.

[Avenger]

Mag:
Nintendo Power....poor lil bastards....give all there games 4.5 or 5 outta 5...they need all the help they can get lol

Website:
IGN......SUCKSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

[vintagegamecrazy]

I don't have a best or worst, as they all can be biased from time to time, I like game informer the most, they give good reviews, i just don't like how they just knock old systems like the Jaguar and could have the nerve to include it in the top ten worst ideas of all time, when they haven't played more than a few of the games. Each one has low points so I make my own decisions.

[jdc]

LOL Give poor Tommy a break. He's not a videogame reviewer. He's a musician and producer. Check out some of his music from Tommy Tallarico Studios if you want to see his talented side ;) . And, yes....what you see on television is Tommy playing a moronic character.

IMO, IGN has always sucked....but, strangely, has such a loyal following. Too much God complex.

Another lame-ass site is Xbox.com. Shameful, considering that it's the official site. Totally sad and their forums are filled with shit-disturbing 12 year olds. Most likely the same losers that are on Xbox Live.

All magazines these days are lacking.....I seem to tollerate OXM....when they aren't stoned on Halo2. Same with OPM....when they aren't high on Grand Theft. Nintendo Power? I wish that magazine would GROW UP!! We see 10 issues a year that cater to 10 year olds and 2 issues a year that are semi-adult. I used to read EGM religiously...then something happened and they went down the flusher. I just picked up the latest issue because the black foil sleeve with the words "Zelda" across it was irresistable. First issue I've bought in 4 years, easy.

Everything else, I can't be bothered with.

[RJ]

I always agreed w/ GI review/ers, & told them so when I ran into them at a local bar (Andy & Matt were in a band.)

Lately I've been relying on OPM & EGM, & I've been posting personal reviews at gamefaqs (Dogs Life, RUNE, & Armored Core: PP).

I have a fe issues of PLAY but havent seen it anywhere else- I recently subscribed to it but still waiting on my 1st issue.

[Berty]

I used to read an Australian pc magazine, Atomic until they obviously sold out after a solid year of good reviews. Needless to say that from then on i stopped buying it.

[Tron 2.0]

EGM>Early 90's they ruled.

EGM>Today they suck i miss when Ed own the magazine.

[FantasiaWHT]

I don't trust any of the online reviewers, really. I've read them all from time to time and agree with very little they say.

Actually I don't really trust Play's reviews either (even though I love everything else about the magazine) because they totally overrate the underdogs... if something is new and unique, but it still sucks, they'll give it a good review.

With the caveat that they're very biased against Nintendo, I like EGM's system the best... Where else do you see scores varying sometimes as much as 4 or 5 points?

That bias IS really disgusting though... I took their review of Mario Party 6 (6.5s or so) and rewrote it verbatim and substituted "Madden" for "Mario" and "EA" for "Nintendo" and it fit perfectly, but they give Madden 9.5's of course... it boils down to that they're both really fun games, but they come out with clockwork-like regularity and nothing major changes year to year.

PSM is a joke. Gamepro's reviews aren't half-bad, despite the fact that the magazine is written for 12 year olds.

[squidblatt]

I used to like Xbox Nation during their early days, even with all the sloppy copy editing. They were the only review magazine willing to make a ten point scale mean something. But really, I think all the scales ought to be thrown out anyway; they put such a slant on the review itself that it almost doesn't matter what the reviewer writes. Everyone just quotes the score without even bothering to examine the actual evaluation.

I don't really pay attention to any one source these days. I like GI simply because I like reading magazines about games. Their reviews are usually okay, but nothing I'd base my decision on. Sometimes I do see some bias, like in the Grabbed by the Ghoulies review, which was simply the culmination of months of trashing and predictions of doom; that game never had a chance. But that's more personal bias than professional bias.

I'd say the least reliable sources are the official mags and sites dedicated to one system. Most of these are promotional tools useful only for news. Even then they can be sketchy. Remember how OXM was calling the Japan release of the Xbox a resounding success? And places like Teamxbox.com are often staffed by people with poor writing and editing skills with no legitimate background in journalism or criticism.

If a game gets a good review in GI and Gamespot in addition to generating positive buzz in the forums, I usually have confidence that the title is probably good. But there isn't one review source I consider reliable enough to warrant a purchase by itself.

[evildead2099]

www.segasucks.net is easily the least valid website that I've ever visited concerning Sega.

[Ed Oscuro]

www.segasucks.net is easily the least valid website that I've ever visited concerning Sega.
rofl viral market'd

[Kuros]

Pretty much any magazine that is dedicated to one system is biased and only worth reading for entertainment value. PSM, OXM, Nintendo Power, etc. aren't worth reading for reviews. I personally like using the many different reviews from Gamefaqs.com

Nothing like seeing the reviews of 10-20 different people for a better spectrum on a game. I'm not big on professional reviewers, due to the money factor.

[Kejoriv]

I think OXM is very biased. I had a subscription when Xbox first came out. It was like one big commercial, even the reviews

[emumuumuucowgomoo]

when it comes to the actual quality of a game, what source do you think has the least credible opinion of reviewing?

Gamefaqs.com - by far. Granted, there's usually one reviewer who's gone through some puberty and can actually weild a keyboard... but there are SO. MANY. DIPSHITS. So many. Example:

BIBLE ADVENTURES
By: EPoetker

Now, after playing the game and reading Seanbaby's ''review'' putting it in the top 20 worst games of all time, I felt compelled to respond with my own review. It's pretty obvious that Seanbaby wasn't knocking the game itself, he was just using it to make fun of religious caricatures for cheap laughs. This is sad, because the game is actually rather innovative(in a wierd sort of way) and has enough Nintendo logic to make any jaded gamer happy. On to the review...

Remember, kids... BIBLE ADVENTURES

Graphics: Considering that this was the first biblically themed console game ever made AND that Nintendo refused to endorse it, the graphics aren't half bad. In fact, they possess the clean animated lines famous in games like River City Ransom and Super Dodge Ball. The only times when sprites are hard to see is when they're meant to be as such(like the tree snakes in Noah's Ark and the scorpions in David and Goliath.) Backgrounds are decent, and especially good in the Baby Moses level, which captures as much of egyptian architecture as is possible with an 8-bit resolution. Unfortunately, slowdown and flash seem to be a wee bit more prevalent here than in other NES games.


BIBLE...
http://www.planetnintendo.com/thewarpzone/colordreamsshrine1/cd/bag2.gif
...ADVENTURES.


Music: There are three tunes in the entire game. The opening theme is the best rendition of ''Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring'' that the NES sound processor is capable of. The actual gameplay music is blessedly muted, because it's basically nothing beyond filler. And the ending theme is...half decent. The sounds don't fare much better than the music, mainly used as a warning before an eagle dives or an angry cow gores you. The cow moo is pretty good, the eagle's cry is...screwed up, I'll say that much.

I mean, what the HECK? BIBLE ADVENTURES, FOLKS. Yeah you know THAT game. The really awful one that you take out to laugh at when your friends are over and you play it until your guy starts outrunning the screen, then you snicker, blow your noses in a Bible, and slam in River City Ransom for some decent 2P.

Gameplay: A fairly interesting item-carrying system and all the norma; platform elements give this game the sort of mindless fun common to the platform genre. The control setup is a little weird, but it makes some sort of sense. The B button is fun-it not only makes you run fast...it makes you CLIMB fast. You can seriously rocket around some of the tree levels like Tarzan once you master the controls. And you should master them, because the games are challenging, especially David and Goliath. There are a few rough ''what do I do now'' spots, but they are usually easily solved with a bit of thought. All in all, it's definitely not Super Mario 3 or even 1, but its got the same charm. Emulate this...it's not supported by Nintendo, so for once you'll actually be playing something on that emulator which they don't remotely care about(like they cared about the emulation of the 8-bit system anyway.) It's fun to try, at any rate.

Nintendo Logic section: HAHAHAAAA! I'll just say this. Noah can carry four cows, David four sheep, and Miriam two egyptian soldiers, a baby, and a chunk of masonry as big as her head. Without slowing down noticably. Those Bible heroes were TOUGH(especially Miriam, who took all those spear thrusts and scorpion stings with only minor damage.) Great Nintendo logic entry by Wisdom Tree!



Fucking retard.

I will say this though - gamefaqs is great when I'm going through a list of games and wondering what to buy - there's usually JUST enough detail leaked into the reviews that I can get an idea whether this game is a side scroller, a SCHMUP, or a dreaded RPG... and for every ten reviews of a game, one will be well written and well argued.


But boy oh boy.


Most online sites suck too. Most magazines suck. They're all despicable and I hate them all and nothing will ever come close to the comforting teat of the Oldskool "Videogames" magazine. Or was it Videogamer? It was around the rise of the PSX that it got sold into new hands which sucked.

[Lothars]

basically Ign aand gamespot are the two places i normally go for reviews

but i see myself agreeing with IGN more than gamespot

I find gamespot to be a pretty bad reviewers most times, thought to get the full idea of a game you should read both ign and gamespot reviews i find together they are alot better than the overrated numbers on ign and just fairly bad reviews on gamespot

gamespy is horrible though and really sucks

[sabre2922]

There are sooo many but the first ones that come to mind are.

well the ones that I actually read both net and in print

PSM (yeah the UNOFFICIAL one) their reveiews are crap 90% of the time.

ANY of the reviewers on the current EGM staff except for SHOE and Crispin the only old-school guys left

Gamefaqs is $hit for reviews although some of the personal reviews are interesting

IGN is soooo freakin biased toward Sony and anything that has to do with GTA or Halo these a$$holes act like they are the only two games that matter ....and that I cannot forgive ;)

Hell its easier to list the good magazines and net sites and reviewers than the bad ones :roll:

[ubersaurus]

Anything Tommy Tallarico is involved with is automatically a bad reviewing site/magazine/tv show/what have you.

[kirin jensen]

When it comes to reviews of Odyssey2 and Atari 2600 (especially O2 vs. 2600), I find the Video Game Critic ( www.videogamecritic.net ) to be stunningly biased toward the 2600 and all too often relying more on nostalgia than the actual quality of the game.

But then I am biased as all get out towards the O2 :D