Can You Trust Reviews From Bigger Websites?
Now that the whole Gerstmann/GameSpot ordeal is back in the news, I thought I'd take a moment to address an important issue.
I can do this because a higher power isn't dictating what I write, and I can do it because in its 12-year history, PSX Extreme has never accepted advertising money in exchange for a promised good review. But more importantly, I think it's critical to note that, to my knowledge, we've never been asked.
The issue is one of business, of course. All the gaming websites you visit every day are free. You don't pay a subscription fee as you would with print magazines and yet, people must work every day to keep that site relevant; to keep it updated on a daily basis. If they didn't, you wouldn't visit very often, now would you? And yes, that all requires money and because the sites don't charge you, they have to rely almost entirely on advertising revenue. It's just the way of the Internet world.
Now, when that includes revenue from game publishers, things can get a little dicey. The publisher will give you money to advertise their game and ideally, that's where the business relationship should end. But because history has proven that review scores often dictate a title's potential success, that publisher is - unsurprisingly - looking for a good review. In a perfect world, that publisher would respect your professionalism and integrity if you post a mediocre reception. But the world isn't perfect.
Things can happen. I know it can. It obviously did with GameSpot and that means gamers are asking the million-dollar question- Is it still going on and if it is, how can I trust any of these huge sites with all this ad revenue from game makers? In truth, you can't. But I have to say, for the most part, I really don't believe publishers paying off editorial staffs is a common practice right now. Just as a for instance - and maybe we're not big enough to matter; you be the judge - we ran a full-page ad for Aliens vs. Predator back in 2010. It ran for a full month, during which we posted our review.
As you can see, we weren't all that impressed. But Sega didn't send us a nasty letter; in fact, they didn't respond at all. They didn't say they'd never throw any ads our way again. It just came and went. I can absolutely guarantee that this is the case most of the time at even major websites. You just have to keep your eyes open. Be logical. If you see a big site like GameSpot or IGN or Kotaku pushing a game for a while, and then you find that their review is - in comparison to other critics - a statistical outlier, you have reason to be suspicious. So if other sites are giving the game a 6, and the site that advertised that particular title gave it an 8.5...
The good news here is that there are many sources. There are many places to go to read video game reviews. Some are better than others but you can always get a bird's-eye view thanks to the glory of search engines and places like Metacritic and GamesRankings. Who only reads one review, anyway? Most avid gamers will do compare-and-contrasts before making their purchase; it only makes sense. And besides, I have to reiterate-
The idea that there's some massive conspiracy in which major gaming websites accept money on a routine basis in return for high review scores is, for the time being and based on my current knowledge, a fallacy. You always have to be careful and in all honesty, I believe this could become a bigger problem in the future. So long as websites remain free and they rely so heavily on ad revenue. But for the time being, let's not turn this into a big ol' plague, with every reviewer at a significant website always under the microscope. It just isn't fair to the vast majority of critics.
Thank you for your attention.
3/16/2012 Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (47 posts)
Doppel
Sunday, March 18, 2012 @ 1:45:53 AM
Sure, there are exceptions to the rule, but in extreme cases where the game is incredibly utterly broken. And when I mean "Broken" I do not mean "PS3 Rimlag" kind of broken but more like "Big Rigs Over The Road Racing" kind of broken.
Jed
Sunday, March 18, 2012 @ 2:32:06 AM
When Ben finds something good about a game, he explains exactly why he feels that way. If he finds something he dosen't like, he tells you exactly why he dosen't like it. He also explains wether it's a game breaker, or something that some people might not even see as bad.
Mr_Sterg
Friday, March 16, 2012 @ 10:05:22 PM
Reply
WorldEndsWithMe
Friday, March 16, 2012 @ 11:02:43 PM
Excelsior1
Friday, March 16, 2012 @ 10:32:26 PM
Reply
Temjin001
Friday, March 16, 2012 @ 11:40:47 PM
CheddarClyde
Saturday, March 17, 2012 @ 1:26:16 AM
BikerSaint
Friday, March 16, 2012 @ 10:37:54 PM
Reply
firesoul453
Friday, March 16, 2012 @ 10:45:54 PM
Reply
Metascore is create in theory but is horribly inacuarate.
Usually I like the reviews of ign but they have been completly wrong before
Classic game room always has good reviews
IrkdI check several sites but usually end up buying it if I can get it if it looked good enough to check reviews
WorldEndsWithMe
Friday, March 16, 2012 @ 11:06:33 PM
Reply
BTW Journey was probably the easiest review of all time, 5 out of 5, it's nothing but pure art. All gamers must play that game, and all non-gamers.
Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 3/16/2012 11:06:47 PM
slugga_status
Saturday, March 17, 2012 @ 10:53:21 AM
Nickjcal
Saturday, March 17, 2012 @ 11:47:10 AM
slugga_status
Saturday, March 17, 2012 @ 12:57:32 PM
Nickjcal
Saturday, March 17, 2012 @ 12:59:14 PM
Temjin001
Friday, March 16, 2012 @ 11:30:45 PM
Reply
Except for GT5. That was just wrong.
Beamboom
Saturday, March 17, 2012 @ 3:47:13 AM
I much prefer to receive an impression refined through a reviewers eye. Plus, there's a lot of really good writers out there too, and undeniable bonus. Heck, I even read reviews for games I can't play at times, at certain sites I just know they will be a good read regardless.
Geobaldi
Saturday, March 17, 2012 @ 4:12:59 AM
H0TSHELLZ
Saturday, March 17, 2012 @ 7:01:42 AM
Lawless SXE
Friday, March 16, 2012 @ 11:45:43 PM
Reply
That being said, I'll generally take the quality of the writing as an indication of whether I'm willing to attach myself to a site. I'll begin to look into their opinions more later because there are so many sites that are just... dreadful.
I think I lost the thread of what I was saying, so I'll stop there.
CheddarClyde
Saturday, March 17, 2012 @ 1:46:12 AM
Reply
Speaking of reviews, I have to question the usage of "review embargos" for some games. I understand the business reasons involved, but I have to question the timing. If review sites aren't allowed to post reviews on games until 8am on release day and the publisher is fully aware the game is broken or flat-out bad, is this them blatantly screwing over their customers by withholding the truth until it is too late (especially since so many of us buy highly-anticipated games on release day) or is it to give them time to have the Day 1 patch ready to fix said broken game thus ensuring a better score?
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Saturday, March 17, 2012 @ 9:43:11 AM
I never understood the process myself. If it's a legal thing, why does it not apply to some games...? Well, whatever, they get pissed if you break the embargo date (unless your name is IGN).
Rogueagent01
Saturday, March 17, 2012 @ 4:37:31 AM
Reply
Most of the other big name sites I don't go, too but I am not boycotting them per se. I have this site and if I really need to read a review I usually go here, otherwise I would rather go to forums and listen to players as I trust them a hell of a lot more then 95% of the reviewers.
Beamboom
Saturday, March 17, 2012 @ 7:38:43 AM
You seriously put more trust in anonymous ramblings by random people on the web and open, anonymous voting/rating processes on meta sites and shopping sites done by people who could be ANYONE: The developers themselves, young teenagers who has learnt nothing in their lives, newbies played three games in total, fans who hasn't even installed the game yet, people who want to defend their own investment, die-hard fanboys who act as as the most objective analytical minds on the planet and others, sitting there in the comfort of their own anonymity?
You trust THEM more than publicly named individuals, screened and interviewed by the management on their writing and background, and *hired* by a professional organization to be *paid* to review games for them.
And you don't see any illogic in doing that? Dude, it's... Madness!
Last edited by Beamboom on 3/17/2012 8:50:25 AM
bigrailer19
Saturday, March 17, 2012 @ 12:43:17 PM
I don't want to speak for rogue but the way I perceive it and can agree with is, I've been here long enough to know who likes the same types of games I do, and I will listen to what they say if it's good or bad. So for instance I will come here and forums to see what people think of a particular title to help make my decision. it's not so much "anonymous" ramblings I'm listening too, but maybe Rogue is, I don't know.
Take Borderlands as a good example, the review here wasn't one I would use as a source for my decision to buy it, but the comments from readers I'd say were. Look how that turned out, one of my favorite games this gen.
Rogueagent01
Saturday, March 17, 2012 @ 1:40:28 PM
That is one of the biggest reasons why I will read some of the reviews here, is because Bens reviews really come off to me as someone I would listen to in real life, I value his opinion on a lot of the reviews that I have read. The most recent one was the PS Vita review for Shinobido(I can't remember what it was called, sorry) but his review made me want to buy the game the moment I buy a Vita. He never claimed it was a great game, but he pointed out that if you were a fan of the Tenchu series then you might like the game, and that is what sold it for me.
@bigrailer
You basically hit the nail on the head. I know who is worth listening to(well reading in this case). And I always take anything I hear or read with a grain of salt, as I said in the beginning of my post I have been playing games long enough to know what I will be interested in. And really one of the big reasons why I will read anything on a game is just to see what like minded individuals think of it themselves. It is extremely rare for people on the internet to be the cause of me purchasing a game.
Beamboom
Sunday, March 18, 2012 @ 4:58:16 AM
That said, I have to admit that I even trust metascores more than I trust friends. Friends often have a second agenda, in that they want you to get the game too so you can play together, they are basing their recommendations on the first impressions (most any game look most impressive at first, before things turn too repetitive), they simply want to defend their investment (it's tough to admit that you failed).
Last edited by Beamboom on 3/18/2012 5:00:58 AM
Rogueagent01
Sunday, March 18, 2012 @ 12:11:23 PM
Even here there are approximately 20(probably a little higher) or so members that get my attention immediately if they post something about a game. I would say half of them are because we think alike(in my mind) and the other half are because we think nothing alike(again in my mind). And you and Big are among that list :D, but I won't say which side use are on ;D. The people I truely take to heart are the ones that can point out the good and the bad in a game, because I have yet to come across a perfect game. That is also why some sites could never interest me because they give out perfect scores, where in my mind no game yet has deserved one, though others might think different about that subject.
It just boils down to how well I think I know someone and whether or not I value said persons opinion. And even then it doesn't influence my purchase of a game, I have bought a couple games over the years that have been disappointments but suprisingly I am happy with 90+ percent of the games I have bought.
Fox hounder
Saturday, March 17, 2012 @ 5:31:28 AM
Reply
JackC8
Saturday, March 17, 2012 @ 8:30:01 AM
Reply
It's all a matter of taste anyway. There may be one reviewer at one site that I agree with sometimes, but I'll disagree with him other times. And to think that there may be 10 reviewers at a site and some people say they agree with all of them...oh jeez. How is that even possible?
I've played more than enough 9.0+ games and found them mediocre, and had a great time with games ranging from 5.0 - 8.5 as far as scores. My tastes are different than that of the masses, and I'm proud of that.
And speaking of statistical outliers, didn't this site give GT5 a 9.9? I think that's an 84 Metacritic average there.
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Saturday, March 17, 2012 @ 9:45:51 AM
Beamboom
Saturday, March 17, 2012 @ 10:20:47 AM
To have a different taste and preference than the majority is of course fair enough. Also, there are those whose taste is to NOT like anything that's poplar. That's a kind of taste too, I guess.
But it's not ALL a matter of taste. There are plenty games that suits my taste perfectly - they are just BAD. The controls suck. That's not taste. The graphics are glitchy. That's not taste. The storyline has giant holes. That's not taste. The characters move a feet above the ground. That's not taste. The voice actors sound like they've never read the script before. That's not taste.
I love open world games. I freedom of movement, I love the illusion of choice. That is simply put my "taste". But oh my god how many games that has that, who still suck SO hard. And wouldn't you know: Most of them has way, way lower metascores than the GOOD games that also match my taste.
Last edited by Beamboom on 3/17/2012 10:23:50 AM
daus26
Saturday, March 17, 2012 @ 2:49:03 PM
Also, for whatever reason, every review I read on the game, they all mentioned "lengthy" career mode as a strength, which is the complete opposite. My guess is no one critic has played it long enough to realize its shortcomings. On the other hand, many other sites, except this had "damage" as a huge factor as their weakness, as well as the "standards." Those are two things that I thought was rather minor.
So yeah, 9.9 as potential maybe, but definitely not what it was at launch. Just my opinion guys.
PC_Max
Saturday, March 17, 2012 @ 9:06:02 AM
Reply
That said, I think a reviewer possibly has a hard time being not being bias to a genre of game they love and like. Essentially they have to be open minded to all the games to do it justice. It can be tough. So keeping that in mind, it is a matter of opinion really the review.
You don't trust one review alone, unless its your own, you look through many.
Russell Burrows
Saturday, March 17, 2012 @ 9:57:04 AM
Reply
Beamboom
Saturday, March 17, 2012 @ 10:28:44 AM
I really think the slandering of IGN is utterly unfair. They just don't hold back in their reviews when they feel something is wrong. And what's the alternative, really.
sha4dowknight05
Saturday, March 17, 2012 @ 1:03:12 PM
Reply
Axe99
Saturday, March 17, 2012 @ 4:17:17 PM
Reply
A huge issue can be whether the game is being reviewed on its own merits, or is implicitly being expected to measure up to the gameplay standards of other titles (for example, expected to match CoD), when the game was never intending to do anything of the sort.
While I'll always check reviews here and at PS3A (my other fave PS3 news site), when I'm reading reviews from other places I've got to 'read between the lines' pretty heavily to work out the basic competency of the reviewer, and their angle on the review - because unfortunately many game reviewers, including those at large, professional sites like IGN, Gamespot and Joystiq, are quite inconsistent in how they go about approaching a game to review.
CanadianGuy420
Saturday, March 17, 2012 @ 8:00:07 PM
Reply
Kevin555
Sunday, March 18, 2012 @ 2:19:20 AM
Reply
No.
I will read reviews but i will never base a purchase off a review. I will always play the game myself first, then maybe a read a review or two after just to see what they think. I don't take reader reviews too seriously either especially when you read three paragraph dribble of hate or worship just to lower or higher a games overall score.
Play the game yourself, you're the judge.
That's my take on it.
Last edited by Kevin555 on 3/18/2012 2:26:45 AM
Beamboom
Sunday, March 18, 2012 @ 5:10:21 AM
Cause my experience is that by far most common is that the meta score pretty much perfectly match my opinion about the game. A 90+ game is so obviously so. A 80+ is so obviously playworthy. A 70ish game has apparent problems, and anything less than 70 is usually not worth your time unless you got a very strong particular interest in that title. 60 or lower, is simply put, junk.
Last edited by Beamboom on 3/18/2012 5:10:45 AM
Kevin555
Sunday, March 18, 2012 @ 7:16:06 AM
I'm not saying it's not a helpful solution to determine what games to buy & what games to avoid, it is because it rounds up all the overall review scores together, but i personally just feel the best way to determine whether you like a game or not is to play it yourself.
That's just me, i've always been like that when it comes to buying games. Doesn't mean i don't enjoy a good review, i read alot of them on various websites but ultimately at the end of the day i won't let a reviewer regardless of how well paid or experienced he/she is in gaming journalism be the reason i get a game without me playing it first & experiencing it myself first hand.
Robochic
Sunday, March 18, 2012 @ 8:08:30 AM
Reply

View Large Image









Pyramid
Reply
Friday, March 16, 2012 @ 9:54:33 PM