Matrix Games Forums

Now for the serious side of parusski-even when I was a teen reading game reviews I noticed the games being reviewed were also being advertised. I have always been skeptical of all the gaming mags.

I find reviews at most sites dedicated to wargaming to be utter garbage. Most of those sites are so small and struggling so much that when a wargame maker reaches out to them there is a tendency not to bite the hand that feeds them

Like Armchair General and The Wargamer?

As Ralph Kramden would say: hominahominahahominah

I agree with wodin here, I do look at major gaming site for reviews but always take them with a grain of salt. My main decision always comes down to the player base reviews, not the fanboys reviews but the actual people who have played the game.

Now on the flip side of the coin I have seen some sites give Good awful reviews to games but yet I purchased them anyways on word of mouth and was blown away, like White Knight Chronicles 1 for the PS3 was totally canned by many reviewers and bought it based on a recommendation from an RPG friend of mine and I must say to this day it is one of the best games I have ever played on the PS3. The same would go for White Knight Chronicles 2 and of course FFXIII and FFXIIIX2 was mostly canned by many people and I still loved every single minute I played them.

So in the end, there are 2 coins to every review.

BTW: I had no idea that this simple thread would generate so much interet, great topic of conversation for sure.

ORIGINAL: Rtwfreak

I've said this for 20 years +. Where there are humans and money involved there will always be bias and palm greasing.

I will always think a prime example was Rome Total War and its like 95% score when it was a horrible non-challenging game and the AI was just plain pitiful even on the hardest settings. I finally found that turning off morale and giving archers unlimited ammo and rarely using archers myself that the game became more fun and challenging but at the expense of gimping myself and giving the AI more resources than me.

The stock campaign was poor true but the genius of Rome was the engine imho. The engine allowed phenomenal mods. Rome total Realism or Barbarism or w/e were called were some of the best games I ever played.

If I'm not sure about the game (with the release price) I'm just waiting for the sale.
Also taking a look into the developer's history is good way to decide.

I think there was a similar situation with HoI 3 release where one of the reviewers didn't wanted to score the game at 9/10 he become fired.

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

ORIGINAL: Rtwfreak

I've said this for 20 years +. Where there are humans and money involved there will always be bias and palm greasing.

I will always think a prime example was Rome Total War and its like 95% score when it was a horrible non-challenging game and the AI was just plain pitiful even on the hardest settings. I finally found that turning off morale and giving archers unlimited ammo and rarely using archers myself that the game became more fun and challenging but at the expense of gimping myself and giving the AI more resources than me.

The stock campaign was poor true but the genius of Rome was the engine imho. The engine allowed phenomenal mods. Rome total Realism or Barbarism or w/e were called were some of the best games I ever played.

Yes, but the mods weren't what was being reviewed when the game came out and it never deserved a 95%.

Just like Diablo III that has been recently released with it's 90's + review scores and having bought and played the game it's hardly worth a 75%

Of course they're biased; they're written by people and people are always biased.

I'm with RangerX3X; Metacritic is the best bet as at least you can compare all the different biases. It's always wise to ponder significant discrepancies between 'professional' and player reviews, particularly if you filter out overemphasized concerns/grudges like particularly loathed DRM from the latter. It's blatantly obvious when advertisers' cash is influential, even among those not getting it as they don't want to be seen as dissenters regarding the really 'big' titles that will sell millions anyway. Pull the other one, IGN.

I stopped looking at reviews a long time ago and I also stopped buying games when they go gold. Most games nowadays are released with a lot of bugs which often are not discovered before you get deep into the game. As most reviews are not only biased but also test the game only very short and superficial a lot of gamebreaking bugs are only discovered later by the ß-testers who bought the game.
 
Before I buy a game I check the forums for a couple of weeks and wait for the first patches. This stopped me buying games like Cliffs of Dover or Silent Hunter V and has saved me a lot of money.
 
Best regards
 
Rainer 

You have to take and review coming from a source with a monetary benefit at stake with a grain of salt. Even if the benefit is as small as a free game.

I trust peers in the community, in fact I'll never buy another game that isn't along the WITP:AE type unless the community gives favorable reviews and months pass to work out the kinks.

ORIGINAL: Rtwfreak

I've said this for 20 years +. Where there are humans and money involved there will always be bias and palm greasing.

I will always think a prime example was Rome Total War and its like 95% score when it was a horrible non-challenging game and the AI was just plain pitiful even on the hardest settings. I finally found that turning off morale and giving archers unlimited ammo and rarely using archers myself that the game became more fun and challenging but at the expense of gimping myself and giving the AI more resources than me.

Well it's a matter of opinion. I love Rome Total War and I think it deserves that 95% rating. I've played it for years and still play to this day. Some folks swear by WiTP AE and I could never get into it because of the micromanagement.


Game reviews are made by human beings so yes, sometimes they are biased.

I remember when the movie Gremlins came out 30 years ago and go bombed by the movie critics. Me and my friends loved it.

Biased reviews?  I shocked, shocked I tell you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME