I cannot stand reviews anymore. The one hideous aspect that I cannot stand in reviews today is that reviewers never even finish games anymore. They admittedly play anywhere from 10-20 hours only, if not less. If they can't finish one play through, they are definitely not going back on another run. This is just insane.
It would similar to if a film critic sat through the first 30-60 minutes of a movie and then said, "fuck it, this is boring". This is not including films like Mulholland Drive where, in my opinion, you don't understand plot until the 3rd viewing.
Same as music critics as well. Imagine a music critic rating the entire album of of the first half, or just the singles.
Alas, I will not ever heed a "game reviewer's" opinion. Their paid words, and reprobate attitudes have little sway with me. I do appreciate user made reviews, like on Amazon and my beloved GOG.

This is intended a review hate thread. Please elaborate on elements of reviews that you think are disgusting.

I hate scores in general but otherwise have no real problems with reviews. They're just opinions from normal people, there is no real gaming journalism specialty that makes them qualified to judge anything objectively.

Find ones you tend to agree with and then value their opinions. For me it would be Brad Shoemaker on GiantBomb or the Jim and John of Rock Paper Shotgun, when they're not being pretentious.

Reviews are not better today than they used to be. Game reviews have always been a bit iffy, with most game reviewers clearly not taking their job seriously.
A few horror examples:
"Syndicate is a typical PC RPG and these types of games might work for the PC crowd, but us console gamers know better" (Review of Syndicate in a console-focused magazine).

In a review for the game Mr. Gimmick for the NES, they noted that the game was easy (truth us, the first two levels are easy, the rest of the game is pretty hard and getting the best end is not just hard, it is Battletoads and then some hard) and complained about the music being bad. Mr. Gimmick has the most advanced sound chip of any NES game, which is why it got such a limited release, it was deemed too expensive to make in most parts of the world, and is generally considered to be one of the finest examples of NES music (Sunsoft was known for creating games with good music).

Black & White got the best score ever in Swedish PC gamer on its release. They did not list a single downside in the review.

Shadowgate was called an RPG in a review.

I like the ones that basically say "this is a shit game because I dislike the genre."

I have to agree.IGN fits this description.and yes Mulholland Drive is very confusing,but is a great movie.
anyway,"reviewers comparing games,yes I know it's hard to not compare,but in some games like Darksiders,reviewers compare it to DMC or GOW,giving it an average score,even though Darksiders is a very fun experience.

I hate most online reviews because of the language. It's near to impossible to find a AAA title review without word "awesome" in it. They're just silly, I don't know how I could treat somebody's opinion seriously, if he can't find other words to describe the game.

I tend to read reviews of something I'm interested in, but I get turned off when the reviewer brings personal preference into it or complaining rather than just giving an explanation as to how things work or what the game is about.

I prefer "user reviews". Those people don't have a deadline and usually only play games that have an inital appeal to them. What helps a lot is that I look up reviews of games I have played by that reviewer and compare them with my own impression. If the reviewer and I share opinions I stick to his reviews.

(Like a certain unicorn...)

Threads like this emerge ~bimonthly.

I do of course agree with you. Everyone's a critic and the Internet allows people to share their bullshit with the rest of the populace.

(case in point)

1) There is simply so much bullshit to sift through. Vast majority of reviews are nonformation.
2) Unlike movies and music, games, movies have a lot more depth. Hence more points that people can like/dislike. You're comparing a 3min / 90min experience to a potentially infinite experience.
3) Reviewers being paid off by the industry. No more to say here. You might as well award the GOTY to Black Ops II now. Dispense with the wait.

That being said - are there are goglodytes who review games in blogs or though similar media? I'd prefer them to be PC gamers exclusively. I do trust most people's views on gaming on this site infinitely more than I trust those of regular reviewers and wouldn't mind reading a blog on a regular basis re game reviewing.

I wouldn't blame game reviewers blame gamers... there's so many stories and videos and things about how people bitch and moan if a reviewer doesn't rate the game what they think... people complain games get 9/10 when they say it should be 10. Sorry but no game ever has been perfect. There's a lot of really stupid gamers out there who think that reviews are not subjective and all reviews of a game should be the same.

As an independent reviewer I must say I do finish most games before writing my reviews, the only exception I can find in my list being Deus Ex: HR, of which I played roughly 25 hours before writing. Any other games I have finished (Note that Skyrim is also another exception - I didn't finish the main quest but one would believe that with over 80 hours spent on a single play through I'd know enough of the game to review it.)

However, your opinion does have a flaw: You can't compare a game to a movie because a game isn't a movie. A game easily lasts 40, 60, 80 hours. A movie rarely takes more than 2.5. If after half an hour a movie hasn't convinced you, you finish watching it because its at most two more hours. Less than half an afternoon. However, if after 20 hours of gameplay you think a game sucks, do you really think that 20 hours later the reviewer's opinion will change? Those are twenty hours you can spend doing something else, playing another game.

At 20 hours pretty much every single game bar an MMO has already introduced all of its gameplay elements to the mix and it's already well inside its main plot. If by that point the game doesn't have enough redeeming qualities to keep you interested, reviewing that is just fine. Expecting people to play a game for 60 hours (Or over 100, since you mention second or third play throughs) is ridiculous. Sometimes we do it because we love the game (as I did with Skyrim), but if the game is unbearable at 15 or 20 hours I sure won't sit there for 40 more hours. Rather than making me love it they'll make me hate it even more.

That's pretty much what it amounts to. It's why I cringe when I'd see reviews of adventure games back in the day that got savaged for no other reason except that they weren't C&C or Quake or Half-Life clones. I remember reading one review of Journeyman Project 3 in PC Gamer where the review just tore it apart as being "boring" because it was an adventure game.

As with others, for game reviews, I usually go to a mixture of sources: Giant Bomb, Eurogamer and Rock Paper Shotgun. I also pay attention to TotalBiscuit's "WTF is.." series. Ars Technica's Opposable Thumbs also have decent reviews as well.

I used to read The Escapist's reviews (before I personally stopped going there over the ExtraCredits controversy) but before I stopped I remember them getting a little hit-and-miss (didn't they give Dragon Age 2 a really glowing review?).

Well, to be fair, critics, just like everyone else, only have so much time on their hands. Sure it sucks, but there's just no way for these guys to finish every single game they have to review. I don't mind scores per se - in fact, I think they're a necessity for every site that reviews more than a couple of games a month. Problems arise when people assign any importance to them once they've read the review, and that's more a failure of gamers themselves, not of the reviewers.

Admittedly, many rating systems invite such reactions - there's just no good reason for a system with 100 steps, and even 10 seems excessive.

Anyway, the only thing I expect from reviewers is a good grasp of their language. Basically, they have to be able to communicate how playing a game feels like. Don't think that simply listing all the pros and cons does the trick.

you have to know how to read-between-the-lines and how to pull out what you need to know to make your desicion.

10 hours is LONG time. sure, ive put thousands of hours into individual games, but we are talking a person's JOB. thats a 1/4th or a full work week, for ONE review. are you suggestioning these guys get paid for a full time job for <4 reviews a week? or should they use their free time (and feel the love!)?


and finally, people often do not know HOW to read a review. 8/10 is "garbage!" where it really means its "very good." the culture has gone to 9.0+ or NOTHING! it often seems people do not understand WEIGHT and RELETIVITY in regards to reviews.


that being said, yea, i fucking hate most reviews i read.

here is 2 reviews that pissed me off

one for a game they were too harsh and unreasonable on:http://www.gameinformer.com/games/monster_hunter_tri/b/wii/archive/2010/04/22/review.aspx

and one that possibly could have been paid off by the dev/pub:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/8701-Dragon-Age-II-Review