Worst Game Reviewers?

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I was looking for opinions on the secret world and I came across this site where this guy was pretending to be Yahtzee it was really pathetic.

I'm not even going to link him here because he doesn't deserve it.

Oh and IGN they are totally paid off.

I wrote a professional review of Crusader Kings 2 that I hated because I didn't like the game personally but I thought it was well made and deserved a fair shake. It was really hard to write and I wasn't happy with it in the end. My boss seemed please though.

 

[xPixelatedx]

Any reviewer that gives ALL "AAA" games 8-10 out of 10's. ...So pretty much all of them!
To always and blatantly avoid true negative criticism doesn't help anyone except the people who pay you through adds. Way too much bias to the point it's pointless to read most game reviews. Thank god we have a few people like Yahtzee, but most are like IGN. =/ I can't blame them though. It's not a matter of, "are they being paid?" it's more a matter of "how scared are they of upsetting the people who pay them?".

Very educational and depressing video on the subject

 

[Carlos Storm]

"overwhelming opinion otherwise" doesn't invalidate someone's thoughts just because they're contrary.

When someone has no information to base that opinion on? having admitted to not played the segment people take issue with? yeah, yeah it does. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but if you know nothing about the topic you're forming an opinion about, everyone else is entitled to call you out on your BS.

No what really itches me the wrong way with Bob is his completely unapologetic attitude towards addressing any mistakes he's made/fan criticism. In short, his arrogance.

 

[PrinceOfShapeir]

Kotaku is an awful site in almost every way. The articles are pretty badly written, they're kinda shady, and god -damn- is their site hideous.

That said, giving a reviewer shit for having an opinion that doesn't run with the mainstream is pathetic and sad, and anyone who does it needs to be kicked in the gonads.

 

[sethisjimmy]

Any reviewer that is too focused on their own opinion. I want to know about the game, how it plays, how the features work, etc. I do NOT need your personal experience with the game, because I don't know or care about your taste.

This is why I actually prefer IGN. Yeah, really. Most people hate IGN's reviews because they can't get over how scores for different games might differ. Personally, I don't pay attention to the scores whatsoever, just the main review. A score is an arbitrary subjective ranking, honestly who cares?

 

[Jazoni89]

Irate Gamer is the worst, mooching off James Rolfe's success and blocking everyone that calls him out for it. What a loser.

God dammit, Ninja'd.

Yeah, Chris Bores is just a talentless hack mooching off everyone's success, and if there was any justice in this world, he wouldn't even have a single subscriber to his name.

 

[Promethax]

Angry Joe. He's vague, uninteresting, and he's not even angry.

If you're going to call yourself "Angry Joe", at least make your videos angry.

 

[Andrewtheeviscerator]

The only game reviews I don't like tend to be the Youtube personalities. To be more specific, that Razorfist guy, he is just a giant flaming douche who should be banned from using a recording device ever again.

The only site I really use for reviews is IGN personally. Usually I just read through the review seeing what's good or bad. Then after that I'll go check metacritic to see what other websites gave it and read through those as well.

 

[Zeckt]

I second Angry Joe, I almost never agree with his nutjob scoring but I find him interesting enough to watch.

 

[Windcaler]

However Ill name one that I think is pretty bad. Angry Joe who does his stuff on Youtube. It goes back to his Alpha protocol review where it was so incompetant he couldnt even be bothered to learn the mechanics of the game before blasting them. Ive seen this with a few more of his reviews so I think hes at best a lazy reviewer

To be fair I don't learn every nuance of a game I think is shit before declaring that it's shit either, christ knows how he got on TGWTG though.

The issue there is I wasnt expecting him to learn every nuance of the game. I as expecting him to learn how the basic mechanics of a pistol works in the game. I dont think its to much to ask to learn the mechanics in the tutorial before you review a game. By not doing that he just showed how incompetant he is (along with everyone else who said the same thing)

 

[babinro]

Don't have one.

Reviewers are gamers and have biases. I don't believe they are bought out to give great scores or anything like that.

Reviewers are also meant to review games in a genre they already enjoy and are informed about. Which is why you don't constantly see huge differences in review scores.

I also understand that reviewers are under time restraints. They can't be expected to fully explore all endings in a game or master Diablo 3's inferno mode prior to a review.

Ultimately, there are only reviewers who I don't agree with or don't meet my taste in games.

 

[togutas]

I know it's cliche but I'm suprised no one has said Navgtr yet


no matter what you think of his opinion he is just such a bad writer, narrator who focuses on the most pointless aspects of a game etc. He is so bad that it just becomes incredibly funny.

And this was on TV...

"no one buys game specifically for multiplayer" oh how wrong you were Navgtr.

 

[The Floating Nose]

Most people from That Guy With The Glasses. Aside from being complete ego-filled assholes from time to time. They are generally pretty awful reviewers (especially Spoony and The Nostalgia Critc when he gets incredibly inconsistent) but DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE to talk bad about them they have an army of dipshits fanboys who will defend them 2 THA DEATH !

Spoony: Never explains why he doesn't like a movie, he just makes fun of it and then claim to be a critic.

Nostalgia critic: Running out of steam, was really funny when he started but now he is reduced to doing only crossover reviews. Makes fun of a movie and pointing out bad stuff for an entire 20 minutes only to say at the last 30 seconds of his videos that the movie is not all that bad.

 

[Burst6]

I don't know about angry joe. I sort of like his reviews. His videos tend to be longer and more detailed and i agree with him most of the time. Even if i don't i generally get enough info about the game to decide for myself. He's also one of the few reviewers out there who makes use of the whole 1-10 scoring system instead of 10 is perfect, 9 is good, 8 is ok, anything lower is crap.

 

[Aerosteam]

IGN immediately pops into my mind. It's a shame how a company so shit at reviews has such a big following.

And don't get me started with official gaming magazines.

 

[Austin Howe]

Noah Antwhiler. Most of the stuff he calls out is truly horrid, but in some cases it's just blind rage and a complete disconnect with the idea that plot holes don't have to ruin something, especially if they have nothing to do with the thematic content of a work. I mean for pete's sake, he basically gave friggin' Blade Runner a negative review. That's a movie with problems, but nothing that he comes up with.

 

[Stabby Joe]

New thread title: Reviewers that gave a game I was hyped for less than a perfect score!

 

[Vausch]

Not quite the reviewer per se, but the controversy surrounding it: Gamespots review of the first Kayne and Lynch. The reviewer basically got fired as Gamespot had the games ads plastered on its website and he gave it a 6/10. Obviously, the publisher wasn't happy about this. It makes me doubt pretty much all of Gamespots professional reviews.

An actual one: Gamesweasel give pretty much every game a 7/10. They basically think all games are slightly better than ok.

Y'know, the numerical style of game reviewing leaves me very confused on a lot of occasions. In gaming, an 8 out of 10 is considered something like "Mixed bag" but if a film had an 8 on IMDB for example it would be incredibly high rated and likely to be very well liked by many. Plus it's rare to see a game get something lower than say a 5 or a 6. I think the lowest reviews I see are from people like Angry Joe, but when he gives a game a score he gives a lot of justification for any faults he sees in it. Then there's Jim Sterling pointing out an 8 is really a great score but it's come to mean the game was hated to some.

What really does a game score represent in the end? If the game is technically functional but the story is absolute tripe, what does that deserve? If the game's story is brilliant but the controls tend to be buggy, does that knock it off or does the story make up for it? Games can be difficult to review because interactivity creates a lot of different experiences.

That said, I'd have to say I'm not a big fan of Gamespot. See the Kayne and Lynch fiasco.

 

[Vausch]

Edit: Damn double post, sorry all.

 

[hazabaza1]

Spoony: Never explains why he doesn't like a movie, he just makes fun of it and then claim to be a critic.

-Worst game reviews.
"Spoony reviews movies badly."
lolwut

If you go through his Ultima series he actually does quite well explaining why he loves the old games and why the new ones have been getting progressively worse.

OT: Can't spell ignorance witho-okay, you know the joke.
But seriously, their God Hand review was done by someone who admitted they gave up on the first level (I think) because it was too hard and they said it was bad because. The shit.