Who Does The Best Game Reviews?

[Rogmeister]

Awhile back, we were discussing what everyone thinks of various game magazines. What I want to know now is who everyone thinks does the best, most objective, game reviews.. These can be either magazines or websites. I kind of like EGM the most as far as magazine reviews go...they don't seem to have it in for any series of games or a given console. I've not checked out that many websites though I do sometimes look up the reviews of GameSpot...I'm now hearing lately a lot of people don't think much of this site. So what's better, IGN or what? Also, is there any real reason to subscribe to IGN's pay service? According to what one guy says, it sounds kind of like the opposite of GameSpot...you pay to read the reviews first but after a week or so, they become available to everyone. If that's the case, why pay? I'm not in that much of a hurry to read a review...usually. :D

[Gamereviewgod]

Next gen was the best *sniff*, but EGM pretty much rules this area. Game Pro is still written for a 10 year old and the "official" mags, well, we all know about them. Of course, you could always just read mine here on the site and be happy....=:)

[mitmoe]

I like EGM for reviews.

[maxlords]

Next Gen was by far the best IMO, and Geamers Republic was good, but both are now gone. :( As for other mags...I stopped reading them all. Don't really care for print mags or online reviews, as I almost always disagree (i'm disagreeable!). Sry..can't help much. I do usually look at IGN and gamespy but I take both with a grain or 1,000,000 of salt.

[digitalpress]

WE DO!

http://www.digitpress.com/reviews.htm

(yay dp)

[IntvGene]

I also use Metacritic (www.metacritic.com) every once in a while. Gamefaqs is okay for the user reviews too. I find that a lot of the professional reviewers from all the sites are too biased in their reporting... especially when you see the ad for the game in a banner beside the review, or something blatant like that!

But, to me it's just like movies. I find most reviewers and I disagree regularly.

[kainemaxwell]

EGM, IGN.com and Digital Press for me.

[hamburgler]

Digital press
EGM
www.gamespot.com
www.ign.com
Game Informer
Official Playstation magizine
Official xbox magizine

[Daniel Thomas]

Well, the best reviews by a mile were from Next Generation; too bad for us now. Of course, there's still Edge Magazine in the UK; sometimes you'll see their reviews posted in the gamesradar.co.uk site. An excellent example of Edge is this review of Final Fantasy X, which was given a 6/10:

"Following the same formula as the previous PlayStation adventures, but exaggerated with next-generation insensitivity, the FFX feature list runs as follows: puzzles which involve little thought, but rely on systematic time-consuming trial and error; unbreakable animation sequences that initially impress, then subconsciously irritate; interminable FMV sequences immediately before unpredictably deadly boss encounters; infinite numbers of unavoidable nonthreatening random battles; an utterly linear room-by-room progression mechanism; and, in Tidus, perhaps the most irritating lead character Square has ever conceived, a squaking, petulant teen who it's near impossible to care for."

There isn't any magazine in the US that would dare knock a prized, A-level title like that.

As for other good reviews, um, well, EGM is okay, I guess. Any of the Dave Halverson mags -- Gamefan, Gamer's Republic, Play -- they still have the funny knack of labeling every game as "the greatest ever made."

The best places to get reviews are Edge, or Digital Press, or, well, how about me?

[Cafeman]

I enjoy EGM's reviews the most. THey are not overly wordy or long, and there are mostly 3 different views on the same game, giving a fine overview.

Other than that, I enjoy Play Magazine's reviews because those guys *still* have that Gamefan kind of style, yet its been somehow updated. Uber-positive most of the times, true. Better that than, say, the internets growing jadism. Is that a word? :)

On the net ... hmmm ... that's a real problem because anybody (even me ;) ) can write reviews and get them published. Most of them are just quickly thrown together clever opinions, nothing else.

[Kid Fenris]

"Following the same formula as the previous PlayStation adventures, but exaggerated with next-generation insensitivity, the FFX feature list runs as follows: puzzles which involve little thought, but rely on systematic time-consuming trial and error; unbreakable animation sequences that initially impress, then subconsciously irritate; interminable FMV sequences immediately before unpredictably deadly boss encounters; infinite numbers of unavoidable nonthreatening random battles; an utterly linear room-by-room progression mechanism; and, in Tidus, perhaps the most irritating lead character Square has ever conceived, a squaking, petulant teen who it's near impossible to care for."

There isn't any magazine in the US that would dare knock a prized, A-level title like that.

Thank God there isn't, at least not since the insufferable, hypocritical, let's-hate-the-popular-stuff nutjobs at GameFan/GameGo closed up shop.

Right now, I prefer EGM and Play, and I'm starting to like GMR. My all-time favorite mag is probably the 1993-1998 run of GameFan, before the decent staffers left for Gamers' Republic and other venues. Crude as they could get, those import-friendly, RPG-filled issues of Gamefan are responsible for making me the game geek that I am today.

As for internet sources, IGN is still dependable, but I can't believe that they fired Dave Smith. He was the best reviewer there, or anywhere else, for that matter.

[Daniel Thomas]

On the net ... hmmm ... that's a real problem because anybody (even me ;) ) can write reviews and get them published. Most of them are just quickly thrown together clever opinions, nothing else.

The problem with videogame reviews, at least as I see it, is that they all follow the same predictable formula. "The graphics are..." "The sound and music are..." The gameplay is..." The reason I've always loved DP's reviews (especially Santulli) is that the writers took the time to bring you into their world, and let you know why they really loved or hated that game that's on every cover.

I think videogame criticism needs to grow up, and grow out of the same please-the-advertisers, appeal-to-teenage-boys, Mad-libs sensibility. I want to read something like Roger Ebert or Pauline Kael. The average videogame player is 28, nearly half are women. There should be a way to reach them.

[Mayhem]

Where I write for: http://www.ntsc-uk.com

Great reviews, always different, always objective...

[Cafeman]

The problem with videogame reviews, at least as I see it, is that they all follow the same predictable formula ... The reason I've always loved DP's reviews (especially Santulli) is that the writers took the time to bring you into their world, and let you know why they really loved or hated that game that's on every cover.

Put a few links to good DP reviews here, Dan, could you? Also give us a link to a few of yours that you particularly like. I may have already read most of them over time, but I'd like to see some you recommend to compare to the drivel I see at some places.

I used to write reviews, for site like the long-defunct Dimension-SEGA to Gaming-Age. I've stopped writing reviews and I doubt I'll write another because of the reasons you listed -- it's too easy to fall into the predictable, dull "been-there read-that" formula. If I were going to write again, it would be an article, not a review.

I like The VideoGameCritic's reviews too, even ones I disagree with (thank goodness his "F" on Star Raiders was recently reevaluated!!! :) ). Brief and to the point, just his opinions why he does/doesn't like 'em. Wordiness kills a good review.

[congobongo]

I like the Canadian show Electric Playground for reviews (televised reviews are obviously a little less in-depth). Between Tommy and Victor I usaully get at a good overview or at least a good laugh. Does this show air in the US? IMO it is the best videogame TV show, though in Canada it's really the ONLY videogame TV show.

[Raedon]

Tech TV's extended play game review show comes on at 3pm central time. It's pretty good, if nothing else you get actual video of the games.

[Rogmeister]

Extended Play used to air on Discovery Science...it no longer does, I don't think. The same hosts also host Judgment Day now, a show on G4 which is an all-review show. EP does other things such as game previews, developer interviews and such.

[Aswald]

Digital Press, simply because it reviews the older games, and it's obviously written by people who actually KNOW and LIKE videogaming.

[Cheese]

Actualy that was Electronic Playground on Discovery Science.
http://www.elecplay.com/

I think it's still on, I saw it about a month ago.

[Captain Wrong]

ME! I got mad review skillz!!! Check this noize:

3d SUX!!!! 2d r0x!!!! CaVe OwNz j00!!! d00D!!!!

*ahem*

I think I'm the only person who liked Gamefan (in it's post Halverson version). Yep, they were full o'shit a lot of the time, but their reviews always cracked me up. I'll take knee jerk negative reviews over knee jerk postive reviews any day of the week. And some times they were dead on the money, at least in my eyes.

Plus I really appreciated the space given to the obscure and imports. And, of course, I dug the fact that ECM was a fellow shmupper (even if I did disagree with many of his opinions.) I liked the fact that a game like Strider 2 or Virtua On would get the same kind of coverage the latest "Final" Fantasy would get in a more mainstream mag.

Yeah, it seemed like a rag tag fanzine some times. But every other magazine seemed too juvenile or too hype driven for me. Though sometimes I would have to roll my eyes, Gamefan plain and simply covered more games I would actually care to play than any other mag out there.

Other than that, Next Gen was pretty good. A little dry, but I appreciated the fact that it was clearly written for an older demographic. Game Informer improved in the time I read it, but I always felt they were being a little too cute for their own good. (Their reviews were pretty funny at times too, but they started giving out waaay too many 9+ scores for me to trust them.)

EGM was good for a while, last time I saw it tho it seemed like they were aiming younger. And I actually quite liked the Official Dreamcast Mag. I always thought Chris Charla was a good ed.

[Nature Boy]

I personally never liked Next GEN that much. They had such an anti-Nintendo bias it turned me off. Back when the N64 was the only next gen console I had, why bother buying NG?

I vote for EGM. I think a good indiciation of how biased a mag is going to be is how low they rate games. If they don't go below a 4 or 5 (out of 10), well, I get suspiscious. And I'm with those who love a good trashing review: they're *always* more fun to read then a glowing one.

I used to read IGN online, until they started charging for almost everything. Not worth looking at IMO. If I'm really curious about how a game is rated I use gamerankings.com - they give you the score of every mag and site.

[Kid Fenris]

I think I'm the only person who liked Gamefan (in it's post Halverson version). Yep, they were full o'shit a lot of the time, but their reviews always cracked me up. I'll take knee jerk negative reviews over knee jerk postive reviews any day of the week. And some times they were dead on the money, at least in my eyes.

Plus I really appreciated the space given to the obscure and imports. And, of course, I dug the fact that ECM was a fellow shmupper (even if I did disagree with many of his opinions.) I liked the fact that a game like Strider 2 or Virtua On would get the same kind of coverage the latest "Final" Fantasy would get in a more mainstream mag.

Yeah, it seemed like a rag tag fanzine some times. But every other magazine seemed too juvenile or too hype driven for me. Though sometimes I would have to roll my eyes, Gamefan plain and simply covered more games I would actually care to play than any other mag out there.

Other than the elitist mindset of the mag, my problem was that the post-1997 Gamefan didn't cover games so much as rant about them. Sure, Strider 2 got a pretty two-page spread, but ECM's "review" was a lengthy diatribe on how anyone who didn't buy the game was a polygon-loving, FFVIII-playing moron. He spent only a paragraph discussing the actual game. And his writeup on Gunbird 2? An incoherent screed on shooter superiority. What's the game like? Dunno, but if you don't purchase and worship it, you deserve a beating. Ugh.

I find that game reviews tend to stick to the graphics-sound-gameplay format due to the somewhat divided structure of the medium. Unlike a film or novel, games are often assemblages of story, interaction, visual impact, soundtrack, etc. It's hard to write a review that covers all of those points without being disjointed. And if you don't hit each of the topics, you run the risk of leaving a reader uninformed and unsatisfied.

Perhaps that's why many of the game reviews on the net are either generic summaries or subjective, useless ravings. There's a way to combine the two, but few critics attempt it and even fewer do it well.

[Captain Wrong]

I agree with you 100% on ECM's "reviews", esp the Gunbird 2 one. I remember asking aloud, "so, what's the damn game like?" after reading it. The others writers, I think were a little more...umm...review like.

I can't claim to be totally objective. As I've said before, I'm a dinosaur. I'll probably always think 2d is better than 3d and that quality gaming died about the time the PSX took over the world. While I don't get the whole elitist thing, I did find it refreshing to read a magazine where people shared my views on games I thought were totally overhyped and overrated. Perhaps they went at it with more venom than I would, but when you're getting "game x" shoved down your throat from every other print outlet, constantly telling you it's the greatest game of all time and you dissagree, it was kind of nice to have an alternative, even if I felt on occasion they went a little too far in the opposite direction.

And I'd still rather read an incoherent rant, like most everything ECM wrote, than "reviews" that sound like someone is just quoting ad copy. I don't know, maybe it's just me. Rants, while useless in trying to determine if a game is good or not, at least indicate some sort of passion for the subject. Sure, a lot of GameFan went in to elitist la-la land, but it was better, to me anyway, than reading a review that could have been a Mad Lib filled in by a random adjective generator.

I guess I don't take reviews too seriously when deciding what to buy. (Hell, if I did, I wouldn't buy shmups, that's for sure!) As for usefulness, GameFan probably ranks a 2, but for pure entertainment value, laughing with or at, off the scale.

[Cafeman]

You hit the nail on the head, Captain Wrong, concerning GameFan and especially ECM's writing style. Elitist, opinionated, harsh, non-informative ranting -- but it was VERY entertaining -- and that's why read play these games & read mags -- for entertainment, right?

Thus, I enjoyed the ECM GF era. I'm biased too -- I love 2D more than 3D (although 3D is growing on me since it finally looks nice) and I love shooters.

Incidentally, when I started investigating making a 5200 homebrew, ECM constantly chewed my ear off about making a 5200 version of Intellivision Tron Deadly Disks. When I eventually told him the name of my first game was "Koffi: Yellow Kopter" he wrote on the GameGo chat something like "*ECM kills himself*". LOL!

[Anonymous]

ME! I got mad review skillz!!! Check this noize:
I always thought Chris Charla was a good ed.

Chris Charla WAS a good ed. I always enjoyed reading his stuff. As for now, gamespot is the first place I go for the big game reviews. Most of the reviewers (Kasavin in particular) do a good job of taking the game apart and reviewing the technical components so I can get a good feel for what the game is like. Then I hit gamerankings and read pretty much whatever reviews are available for the game. From there, it's a matter of determining the level of intelligence of the reviewer, and their tastes. Oftentimes a the impression I get of a game's rating has nothing to do with the rating the reveiwer gave it.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Online IMO Video Game Critic (http://videogamecritic.net)