It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
To me, it's less about an individual review than it is an examination of reviews in general. I look for a stack of positive, a stack of negative, and then look for similar phrases/comments/trends/etc. Then I'll base my decision off that compared to how important the trend item is to me.
For instance, if a game gets a lot of negative reviews for its solo play but the multiplayer is consistently pointed out as an exception, I still won't be interested as multiplayer means nothing to me (speaking of console style games), whereas if those cases were reversed I might very well purchase the game even if the multiplayer is abysmal.
Don't know why people aren't voting, its entirely theoredical. We obviously know we would want a fair and balanced review over a hater or fanboy. This thread would be stupid if it was just that, and I highly doubt people to be that unintelegent towards that end.
Vote based off this simple assumption:
"If for some reason there was only 1 review by a hater, and 1 review by a fanboy, which review would you be more likely to believe? Which side do you believe would give the best representation of the game, even if it was so biased in one direction or the other?"
Instead of reviews, I stick to doing the following :
1. Go to Twitch.tv/Ownd3d
2. Search for the game Im thinking of buying
3. Watch people play it
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni ( o.o) (")(")**This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
On hiatus from EVE Online since Dec 2016 - Screw off-grid PVE boosting changes
Pouring on extra "Salt" for 2017
In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™ "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I think it is too simplified as you put it.
I believe you have 2 categories of posts in both, positive and negative reviews:
a) There are people who make a positive review which may accurately describe the game just from a positive perspective. Giving specific examples of which they believe makes the game good.
b) Then you have blind fanboys who claim that the game is second coming.
a) People who apply constructive criticism in their reviews.
b) People who just flame the game. "This game sucks" group basically.
For me, it does not matter whether the review is positive or negative. It just has to be category a), not b).
I did not vote in the poll.
A critical review is always more reliable than a optomistic one.
It's simple logic, if a critical review can only critique a few things or nothing at all, then it must be a pretty damn good game/product. If there is a lot wrong with it, then it stands to reason it's garbage.
But if a optomistic review can find few things or nothing at all to praise, then it's a pretty sub-par/garbage game/product. And if it praises it throughly, it can still be a marketing ploy, or a fanboy, or someone who has biased intentions.
To sum that up, it's harder to point out flaws biasedly, (You have to make actual points/comaprisons, or they don't matter.) than it is to praise a game falsely. (Requires no logic or knowledge to do.)
To find an intelligent person in a PUG is not that rare, but to find a PUG made up of "all" intelligent people is one of the rarest phenomenons in the known universe.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
All I can do when I see people talk about how they wish reviews were more objective is /facepalm. A review is inherently subjective and the only objective parts you can bring to it are does it have or not have this or that feature. Everything else is going to be subjective. It is impossible to bring objectivety to an opinion piece like a review because everyones opinions on things are different. There is no scientific method for game review so just read as many reviews as you like and in the end if you're gonna decide whether or not you like a game you will ultimately have to play it yourself to find out. Until the point where you have the time and money to do that just read as many reviews as you can to get a feel of whether or you want to buy a certain game or not. Or like the above said find a reviewer you like.
As far as the OP I tend to believe the negative review first because lately most games I do put my hands on are crap. Well online games anyway, but that's my subjective opinion I can't give you an objective one that would be impossible.
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
I actually lean toward being a more positive person, in general. That said, I'd still rather hear from the hater than the fanboy. The super fans are, in most cases, going to simply regurgitate information we already have. Odds are high that a publisher is already going to be shoving the postive aspects of the game in our faces in their release information and videos. Its what they are most proud of, after all. The hater is going to say something that we HAVEN'T heard already. Bugs, glitches, hacks, server stability, overall player attitude...and these things are important. Now, I won't say that I'd read those reviews as gospel truth. They aren't, they are deliberately skewed reports based on either a poster who just enjoys flaming or a consumer that is angry. Neither case is a person dedicated to thoughtful or reasoned consideration of the product. BUT, taken as a grain of salt, they can provide a limited insight into something you would, otherwise, never hear about.
Just be certain to read each flame as though it was nothing remotely as bad as they make out to be.
These terms are wrong.
You dont use terms or design games or policies or whatever based on companies, developers or publishers point of view.
Whoever you are, this is a very big evidence that you are not one of us.
Beware of this "MMOExposed" person.
What really matters is not whether the message is positive or negative.
To cause effects the only thing that matters is whether or not the target identified himself right away with the agent.
That is why some gamers are so influent and popular in making or destroying products.
If you cant engineer a point of view that identifies with the target audience, doesnt matter whatever you say.
There is nothing to believe about reviews. They are not made to be factual or an accurate assessment by any means. They are nothing more than a form of entertainment.
How many people would actually look at a review if was nothing but gameplay and a list of features?
With reviews it isn't positive, or negative that effects credibility. It is quality of review.
Take a logic, or debate, maybe a public speakiing course. There you will learn what makes an argument valid.
If you wish you can contemplate how for a few years now almost EVERY, I would say 90%+ of games reviewed by the media have been rated very high. Are we to the point that we believe all these games released are awesome?.....But I have been told tinfoil hats are out this year....
I think Guild Wars 2 and WoW are perfect example of how you should be super picky when trusting reviews from individuals that do not have a reputation to worry about. Obviously somebody who takes pride in being a good reviewer will put in the extra effort to make a fair and balanced assessment, otherwise they will be untrustworthy.
GW2 had a bunch of cheerleaders claiming Anet finally understood what mmorpg gamers wanted and GW2 was going to be the game to change the genre for good (they did this mostly before the game even launched). They were clearly wrong.
WoW had a bunch of haters before every expansion say that Blizzard finally put in the nail in the coffin with <insert random change to the game> and WoW will die soon. They were clearly wrong.
A lot of people mention that you should never fully buy into the hype and i'm very much in agreement.
Back then I said Guild Wars was not a MMORPG and should not be covered as such in this website.
This was not about being negative "anti guild wars" , neither it was about being a fan boy "this is a nice new game in development, dont bad mouth it".
It was me stating an objective verifiable fact.
The fact ended up ignored!
and the whole issue/discussion was brought down to the level of "Negativity" vs "Fanboys".
Stating a fact didnt worked.
But down the road I learned what works... conclude for yourself and if you really is one of those people that absolutelly must cause an effect on others based on your oppinions and points of view, then just shape your method/bridge in a way that others think its themselves that are thinking what you want them to think.
I'll read both as well as middle of the road-type reviews.I will also play a beta or trial before deciding if I want to play any game.
When I hear of a NEW game, first thing that matters is to know how popular it is from the moment I heard of it.
More popular, the better. I search youtube for it plus the word gameplay. I dont care about teaser/cinematics/trailers.
I dont watch the full video either, I go straight to the action, unless the presentation is very good. If it doesnt get to the point where I identify the "auto targetting", "stuck in the ground", "generic fantasy", then
I check website, if there is a features list I read it, if there is any blatant shop stuff on main page I quit, if not, I check forum and see how many topics/repplies it has and then I read the title of the first page of topics. I check "update/news/announcements" for raw information regarding close/open beta/release date.
I filter the huge majority of information. I dont read any articles or reviews on main magazines/websites. I just use them to know the name of a new game announced/betaing/released, whatever the views of the website in question or the reviewers of it ARE ALWAYS BIASED (They dont even know what a true MMORPG is in the first place, so whatever they think start from the wrong premises). What matters to me is negative topics denouncing the flaws of design of the game. Any title that hints of negativity is worth a read, specially if its subtle, because then I know Im going to read something inteligent. That is worth reading the OP. I dont read the repplies, I just scoop around and try to answer the question: "is this one of those topics where fanboys come to defend the game and insult the OP?", if it does look like it, then I dont bother reading. Now, if looks like the OP barelly scratched the surface, because people are agreeing with him, then I do stop to read the biggest posts repplying in agreement with him.
To me, the "negativity" label ended up embracing the true reviews, stating facts and inconvenient truths about a game. Good games dont need to be defended. 0% tolerance to fanboys. The matter is learning how to filter the "negativity" for truths and objective facts that developers/fanboys would rather left hidden.
Truth of the matter, anyone that comes up with a "Review" that looks semi-professional loses all credibility and legitimacy to me. What matters to me is a random Joe attempting to express why he didnt liked the game. Thats enough for me.
For example, The Elders Scrolls Online, I didnt watched a single video or even went to the main site. All I needed to know was on the negative topics being honest about the many design flaws of the game: that its another linear generic themepark clone with boring combat attempting to cash in on the famous IP with none of the gameplay or freedom of the single player games.
I'm not here to complete my forum PVP dailies.