Support NeoGAF

[In Your Vase]

Was curious if anyone had fallback review sites/systems they tended to check before purchasing a game.

I tend to check Steam reviews (platform of choice), and by default, Metacritic is often on the Steam page as well, but sometimes I'm curious what Metacritic says and who said it enough to actually go to Metacritic to see what's been said.

If a Steam review of a product is Mixed, either that's either a no-buy, a "go to discussion page and see what's wrong," or go elsewhere on the net and see other scores - and then likely wait for a sale.

I didn't include Amazon or Google reviews of a game, but if someone does check those, I'd be curious to know.

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

Maybe I'll check the metascore but I don't care at all what score it gets, if I'm interested I'm buying regardless.

 

[JimmyRustler]

I only check Metacritic and 4players.

 

[GymWolf]

None.

Reviews are only for analytical datas like number of levels, weapons etc., I don't care about their judgement at all.

 

[bender]

I don't really consumes media anymore. I've either lost interest in the gaming podcasts/shows or said podcasts/shows have gone defunct. I guess I'm also pretty set in my ways of knowing what I'll like or dislike.

 

[AV]

Metacritic. I don't like any one outlet enough to justify using their score alone as a judgment.

Even MC is still only a vague indication to me, you can often tell which studios are going to release 90+ games and which aren't. But if something has a good MC score it more often than not means I'll enjoy it enough to play. I've found a lot of great games I might not have otherwise this way (most recently There Is No Game).

 

[Kuranghi]

I just watch EZA because I like their excitement about games, I enjoy listening to their critical opinions, some of the members I rarely I agree with and some I mostly agree with. They are positive about games without being hype-tards.

I know what I like so I'm watching them talk about something but not usually to decide whether I'll play or not, more just to see what they thought about it, maybe see if they highlight some aspect I might've missed.

 

[MadchesterManc]

I generally just buy a game that seems interesting enough to me, sometimes leads to a stinker or a hidden gem, but reviews have little bearing on a purchase for the most part

 

[GHG]

Steam reviews and then the following on youtube:

Easy Allies
Skill Up
Worth a buy

If it's a genre specific game in then also the following:

Fextralife (RPG games)

Gamermuscle/ Jimmy Broadbent/ Billy Strange Racing (racing games/sims)

Gameplay previews/let's plays to get a feel for games:

FightinCowboy (his tastes heavily align with mine)

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

None, I form my own opinion. I don't even watch trailers.

 

[mckmas8808]

None, I form my own opinion. I don't even watch trailers.

This is a weird statement.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

Ok.

 

[Griffon]

Negative steam reviews are sometimes very useful. If the critics are against dumb things or things I don't care about, it's a good sign.

Otherwise, I just watch gameplay directly, be it longplays or streamers. You can't bullshit with an uninterrupted raw gameplay feed.

I'd like to say I trust neogaf posts, but frankly the consensus here is usually eerily close to average metacritic scores (which I find myself often disagreeing with). So yeah, gaf is limited to a news source for me.

I don't seek professional reviews, too much bullshit.

 

[Bodomism]

Metacritic

 

[Black_Stride]

Realistically none matter, but i do like knowing a games weaknesses.

But if im hype for a game ill likely get it either way.

Note. In my books a meta score above like 60 is a good game.

 

[Allnamestakenlol]

MC and Steam reviews are about it for me. Maybe a couple of YT'ers like Skill Up and ACG. Even those I take with a grain of salt.

 

[AJUMP23]

I will look at Open Critic. but I really just look at the conversation around a game I am interested in, to see if it is worth my time.

 

[Mabdia]

I use the user score on metacritic. It is interesting to see what other players think about a game that i want to play.

 

[ssringo]

Steam reviews. They're a pretty good indicator if a game has any major problems with the pc release.

Other than that I pretty much know if I'll enjoy a game or not.

 

[uncleslappy]

Mostly EZA is the only opinion that matters to me. I will often check metacritic just out of curiosity, but outside of sub-7 scores or scores above 9s, metacritic usually doesn’t influence my buying decisions.

 

[spawn]

I watch the trailers mostly. If it looks interesting then I get it

 

[R6Rider]

I don't use scores when buying games as I know enough about what games I enjoy to not need them. I still watch reviews from some YouTube channels, but only for entertainment.

 

[Kuranghi]

Mostly EZA is the only opinion that matters to me. I will often check metacritic just out of curiosity, but outside of sub-7 scores or scores above 9s, metacritic usually doesn’t influence my buying decisions.

They seem to be the only ones using a sensible scoring system, if they give a game a 7 it probably means its quite a good game, just has a number of problems or squanders its potential. On other sites that means its garbage somehow.

 

[Kacho]

Steam reviews are the only ones I pay attention to on the regular.

I like seeing the scores big sites give to games but I don’t actually value what they think.

 

[brian0057]

Steam reviews tend to fall in line with my personal taste so I take those into consideration.
Not always but most of the time.

But the biggest factor in me deciding to buy a game is to see actual gameplay of said game.
I can count on one amputated hand the amount of games that have changed significantly between released footage and launch enough for me to change my opinion on it.

 

[johntown]

For day 1 I have to go with Metacritic for a general idea. If I can wait a month or so Steam reviews are fairly accurate for me. I don't really trust official reviews like IGN but I will watch them and try to make an informed judgement.

If I want the game I don't care what reviews say.

 

[PooBone]

I usually watch GiantBomb's quick looks and that's enough. Not a "review," per se.

 

[LordBlodgett]

I do check metacritic and opencritic before spending money on games, but I don't automatically discount a game unless its below a 60. Some games I love are 75-80 MC score. Critics are only one part of the equation, and I find they sometimes have a certain groupthink going on. I also sometimes enjoy games that are extremely divisive, and those don't do well on sites like MC. They end up with a bunch of 5/10 and 9/10 scores and average down to a 70 or something. The user score is usually more indicative of whether a game is going to be good or not, but now that review-bombing is a thing you have to check for that as well.

 

[manfestival]

I mainly look at metacritic and steam to see what people are saying in general. The only issue is that I have fewer options or reviews on my more niche titles. Fortunately those communities tend to be generally more brutally honest than the average bigger budget title.

 

[rofif]

I look here and metacritic.
I usually know what I want. I used to look at giantbomb but that was years ago...

 

[ethomaz]

When I want to play a unknown game from a gente (mostly turn based JRPG) I go on Metacritic and get a list of the most rated games... after that if there is a demo I try it if not I look on the PS Store video before make the purchase.

I found a lot of gems that way.

 

[In Your Vase]

I look here and metacritic.
I usually know what I want. I used to look at giantbomb but that was years ago...

Ah, I should have included NeoGAF.

 

[Termite]

Back in the day (like 15 years ago) Metacritic was amazing. This was back when the major factor in a game's quality was how technically advanced it was, which is something that most reviewers were good at objectively quantifying. If you liked a genre and it got high scores, you were good.

Now, every major game is technically excellent, and if it isn't social media will tell you quickly. Reviewers care more about the politics of the game than the gameplay or game balance. Thus the metacritic score means nothing to me any more.

However I still do read the eurogamer review of games I'm interested. It's unscored, but usually a decent read.

 

[Arkam]

I voted Metacritic and "None". Metacritic cuz, as an industry person I am conditioned to care about the aggregate score. Always looking last entry score vs new one. Or hoping you will get a bonus (or simply not laid off) or not. I am fully aware how unscientific it is and how many outlets give overly high/low scores to get noticed.

So in the end.... fuck reviews. They are very rarely academic in nature and instead just a subjective opinion based on taste. The odds of the reviewer and I having similar taste is incredibly low. So no real need to read/watch/listen to some rando giving a rando hot take. And lets be real, they probably didnt even play the game much and just lifting opinions from the first reviews published.

 

[fart town usa]

Random YouTube videos to see gameplay for modern titles, and Game FAQs for retro games. Nothing is more fun than booting up a PSX era game and then going and reading old reviews and forum posts on Game FAQs.

 

[HE1NZ]

I just watch gameplay footage and if it look good I'll try it anyway.

 

[Shubh_C63]

Opencritic

 

[TintoConCasera]

Steam reviews, and maybe some youtubers who might have the same tastes as me, but the later is usually more about checking the game and less about checking their opinion tbh.

 

[Nocturno999]

Steam reviews. I avoid shilltubers for reviews except maybe Angry Joe.

If still undecided, I watch game play videos.

 

[anthraticus]

RPG Codex for

ones like this...

Oblivion Review :: rpg codex > doesn't scale to your level

RPG Codex > putting the 'role' back in role-playing. A highly prestigious gaming magazine with news and views on the latest and not so latest RPGs.

rpgcodex.net