But if it`s not online?
People say I post too much
12th February 2004
then u go to magazine/ newspaper's website, send them an email of the challenge, tell em to sign up to the forums so u can easily tell em what u want, then do waht i sed b4... sry for bad spelling im gettin tired
exploder...when you read a review talking about your favourite game whose author hates it, says it`s sucks and says anything negative about it? About me it depends on how the author says it. If the cons he notes are reasonable, I`ll understand that. But if he says cons that are false and incorrect or very irrelevant, I`ll get mad and offended.
I don't buy off of reviews, I buy off of personal preference or if my friends like it, which basically means violence, lots and lots of crazy violence :KTA:
When reading a review, you have to remember that what you are reading is someone’s personal opinion of a game
thats a very good point.. they cant really TELL you what to buy. Its up to you, they may have been having a bad day when they wrote it or they might not like that sort (genre) of game...
Well, think about this. A game reviewers job is not to state is opinion or to try to persuade people. His job is to simply explain what is good and what is bad about the game. It pisses me off to see somebody get paid for what he is not doing. If I made a review of some game, and I knew that many people depended on me so that they could know what kind of game this is, and I just said, "This game sucks ass, don't buy it." Or I said, "Get this game, now! It's awesome!", then I wouldn't be doing my job.
Ex-MøđęRāŧǿr ø₣ Geňęrāł Gāmíňĝ
31st January 2004
Most PC magazines do state what is good and what is bad, but ones on the internet are generaly unreliable (or so i have found). If i still wanted proof of if it is really good or if it suck then i would downlad a demo.
The only thing I pay attension to in the reviews is the graphics cause those are normally facts and accurate. As for gameplay I rely on friends who have played it or seen it before.
This is really annoying. This is why I don't trust many reviewers, but I still read them to know how everything works. They mostly give bad scores on their behalf, maybe because they don't like the concept. Why? Because since they've been in the business for so long, they think they rule everything.
I especially hate the show X-play's reviews. They really review things the wrong way. Let's see what I'm pissed about most of: Enter the Matrix. They said theirselves they don't care much for the Matrix and gave it a 2 out of 5. Yeah. Okay.
I don't like IGN much, because frankly, their scores are too much. I don't need a freakin' 8.8 to know how good it is. A simple 8 or an 8.75 would do it good. Theirs are too confusing and they said really good games suck, such as: Mario vs. Donkey Kong, or Front Mission 4.
The ONLY good reviewer you can trust is Game Informer. They do everything right. Their scores are like 9.25, 8.5, 10, 9.75, they do quarters and it's perfect. And hey, they gave Enter the Matrix the only score it should deserve, an 8.25! They do everything the way I like it. A short sentence or two about the mechanics of the game, such as sound, or graphics. And the rest is of the gameplay. It's great.
Disconnecting is right. The graphics are the only thing that you can really accurately trust them on.
What about Gamespot?