Gamesradar is funny at times, with their features that is, and I trust their reviews, Gametrailers is also a semi trustworthy site.

I go to Gamerankings to find the general score of the game, and I usually go to IGN. And Yahtzee isnt a very trustworthy journalist. He likes to rip apart games for any tiny detail, and they arent exactly the greatest reviews, but they are hilarious. But really, its better if you play the game yourself, and rate it, instead of letting other people's opinions control you.

I think the reason the majority of the people defending Yahtzee's trustworthiness are doing so is because while he may be biased, he's at least open about it. We generally have a pretty good idea going in of whether he's going to like a game or not based on the genre and content. He also has high standards, so people know that when he says a game is good, it's probably pretty damn good.

I have found that nearly all of his reviews point out the flaws quite well, and as he's said, he's a critic, it's his job to criticize. Despite all the shit he rakes up, he actually has liked a lot of the games he's reviewed. Obviously he makes a lot of use of hyperbole, but that's part of what makes it funny; I just make sure to take the criticisms with a cup of salt, as they probably aren't as annoying as he makes them out to be. I also tend to put a lot more stock in story than he does, regardless of how cliche it is, so I know that "too much story" for him is often "cool, lots of story" for me.

Anyway, to answer the original topic, the reviewer I trust the most is myself playing the demo. Yahtzee hated Burnout: Paradise, but after playing the demo I found the visceral crashes to much to pass up, and after buying it found that I really enjoyed exploring and learning the ins and outs of Paradise City. After playing the Tomb Raider: Underworld demo, I think that's on my list too, at least to rent. Long story short: there's a demo for nearly every game nowadays, and it's usually a good indicator.

Other than that, I've come to trust GameTrailers, for a few reasons:
1. They balance the good with the bad. They actually often tend to bring up a lot of the same criticisms as Yahtzee.
2. They take the perspective of a fan of the series/fan of the genre. They know that people who hated the first two Halo games (read: most people here) aren't going to buy Halo 3, so they focus on what it brought to the table that the second one didn't, which is the selling point for fans of the series. The same goes for fighting games, or JRPGs, both of which we know Yahtzee is inherently biased against.
3. They review all the content. Staying on the Halo 3 example, I don't think Yahtzee realized that by the time of the third installment, the main draw of the series, for most fans, was the multiplayer. Sure, they wanted to "finish the fight," but most people wanted great multiplayer from the title more than anything else.
4. They rarely, if ever, actually contradict Yahtzee's points, and the consistency adds to the notion that they aren't getting free money for giving the game a good score.

A couple of people have mentioned metacritic and gamerankings as trustworthy but I often find them way off base (for example the LoZ: OoT score). If the majority of game reviews are biased puff pieces then the aggregate scores are clearly going to reflect this. Also I tend to distrust 'group think'.

This blog doesn't do reviews but it's excellent for critical analysis.
http://magicalwasteland.com/

Victor Lucas (EP,Reivews on the Run, and good ole Judgment Day) is trustworthy (unless Greedy Productions (his company) then the score balloons like it did in the Turok review).

Amnestic:
You trust Yahtzee to give "reliable" criticism? You sir are a fool.

Harsh but true. There are more lighthearted adjectives.

Anarchemitis:

Amnestic:
You trust Yahtzee to give "reliable" criticism? You sir are a fool.

Harsh but true. There are more lighthearted adjectives.

I'd intended to go with "moron" or "bloody idiot" at first, "fool" was polite by those standards.

None, including Yatzee

Yatzee is well intentioned but seems to put on too much of an 'indie reviewer' hat and as such ends up taking the exact opposite position to whatever game hes reviewing. He rips it apart and sometimes reticules those who enjoy it a bit much simply for the sake of giving a 'real review'. At least thats how it seems. He is honest, just not as objective as he used to be.

Anyone on TV should be out right away. They are all either getting paid off by big companies, working for people who are, relishing the status as some sort of minor gaming celeb or just repeating things others have typed up, never having touched the game. Usually these generalizations extend out to magazine reviewers as well, save the latter. After all it makes no sense to hire a writer who does not play the game themselves since odds are good most fan will never see that person live.

Dan Hsu is obviously someone you can trust as much as you can trust anyone. He has Journalistic integrity. Some of the others who have served with him on EGM are pretty good too, though trusting any of them fully is foolish.

James Rolfe is one guy who seems to have a passion for what he makes, and who reviews things that I doubt game companies care about much anymore. Bashing Simons quest isn't going to step on anyones toes. He just wants to make a good product.

But you really should only trust one review, Your own. Games are intended to be fun. If you want to know what games are good then read a few reviews, take it objectively, look at games you like, rent if possible, then just go for it. You are the only one who knows what you find fun after all.

Amnestic:
I'd intended to go with "moron" or "bloody idiot" at first, "fool" was polite by those standards.

You liked Super Smash Bros Brawl, didn't you?

I go to metacritic.

Trust no one, walk softly and carry a big gun. IGN and Gamespot are the only good reviewers for me as Gamespy is 90% ads. Game trailers are also good because most if not all of their reviews are in video form so you can actually see the game play and what the reviewer is talking about.

OHC:

Amnestic:
I'd intended to go with "moron" or "bloody idiot" at first, "fool" was polite by those standards.

You liked Super Smash Bros Brawl, didn't you?

When he did both the review and Mailbag Showdown I hadn't even played the game because it hadn't come out in the EU. My posts in this thread have already displayed how I feel about Yahtzee and critics on the whole in regards to professional reliability. How much I agree with them and like them are entirely separate matters in my eyes.

The fact that you think I dislike Yahtzee because he insulted a game I like shows that you have an extremely flimsy view of the world, not everyone is that petty. Some of us recognise that, shockingly, not everyone will think the same thing and that just because we disagree doesn't mean we have to hate each other.

Amnestic:
The fact that you think I dislike Yahtzee because he insulted a game I like shows that you have an extremely flimsy view of the world, not everyone is that petty. Some of us recognise that, shockingly, not everyone will think the same thing and that just because we disagree doesn't mean we have to hate each other.

Your response shows you left your sense of humour in your other jacket :P

OHC:

Amnestic:
The fact that you think I dislike Yahtzee because he insulted a game I like shows that you have an extremely flimsy view of the world, not everyone is that petty. Some of us recognise that, shockingly, not everyone will think the same thing and that just because we disagree doesn't mean we have to hate each other.

Your response shows you left your sense of humour in your other jacket :P

I'm not wearing clothes at the moment, so quite likely.

Amnestic:

OHC:

Amnestic:
The fact that you think I dislike Yahtzee because he insulted a game I like shows that you have an extremely flimsy view of the world, not everyone is that petty. Some of us recognise that, shockingly, not everyone will think the same thing and that just because we disagree doesn't mean we have to hate each other.

Your response shows you left your sense of humour in your other jacket :P

I'm not wearing clothes at the moment, so quite likely.

For one thing, that's hot.

Another thing, is that I found the game GunZ to be fun. I've even reviewed it, and tried to get some people to try it out. I thought it was unique, and worth dipping into for a bit. People disagreed with me NOT because they found my points to be invalid, but they weighed in their judgements that the community and the terrible weapon balancing were too horrible to ignore.

I doubt that each specific topic that I covered was ever proven false. It's because facts are always true and trustworthy! Facts are always, forever true. Criticism is bashing facts; therefore, whatever review pumps out the most negative criticism, and brings up the most of the bad points is likely to be the most reliable. (Not infallibly so)

Unless they're
A. Lying
B. Ignoring major good points
C. Squealing about petty trivialities
D. Ugly

That's why I love Yahtzee, that sexy beast.

How about Sean Elliot from EGM? His "Rest of the Crap" reviews are hilarious. He can be counted on to give funny reviews of crappy games in every issue.

As far as buying games based on reviews go, I always read reviews from at least three or four different, unrelated magazines and/or web sites before I make a decision based on reviews. If I can rent the game from Blockbuster or Gamefly first, even better.

SimuLord:
Yahtzee is a guy with a swell hat who's paid quite well to make even the good games look awful (everything I gathered from today's video suggests he actually LIKED Fallout 3), which on the one hand makes his praise of Portal stand out and on the other hand means if you're using his reviews to make buying decisions, the only games you'd own would be Prince of Persia, Portal, Thief 2, Silent Hill, and System Shock 2.

Pyschonauts and possibly Assasins creed too

Edge magazine used to be fairly impartial, but nowadays it's only yahtzee that seems to be honest.

I also agree with everyone who's mentioned Penny Arcade. They tend to review (or at least mention their thoughts on) most big releases. Both of them give valid arguments in all their views.

I've also bought every game on Greenhouse, and they're all great. Just more good things to say about Gabe and Tycho.

Everyone is biased. But Yahtzee is the least biased. Don't be mad because he shoved a game that you like flaws in your face, which you chose to over look because over all you liked it.

The sad thing is, ever since Yahtzee became so popular, even the FREE, amateur critics can't be trusted, because most of them are now trying to get hired by some website just like Yahtzee was, and they're willing to say a lot of crap in order to get attention.

However, there are a few good ones still out there. I recommend Game OverThinker for a refreshing change.

Bulletinmybrain:

D_987:
Yahtzee trustworthy...hilarious yes, but trustworthy - no.

I trust Gametrailers and occasionally IGN.

IGN are pretty much Xtards last I heard.>.> As is GT.

lol, thats just PS3 fanboy talk, they did a very fair review (Gametrailers) of Resistance 2, gave it 9.1, and someone on this site made a thread complaining it was biased and that it should have got a higher score....they are the biggest sites for a reason.

A Papercut 000:
Everyone is biased. But Yahtzee is the least biased. Don't be mad because he shoved a game that you like flaws in your face, which you chose to over look because over all you liked it.

*facepalm*

Ragdrazi:

Amnestic:

When he did both the review and Mailbag Showdown I hadn't even played the game because it hadn't come out in the EU.

So do I trust you or do I trust Yahtzee who says in the beginning that he got an import copy of the game thanks to the charity of GAME TRAIDERS ROBINA?

You trust neither of us. Yahtzee hated SSBB, I quite enjoyed it when it finally came out about 3-4 months after the US release. Whatever Yahtzee and I thought (putting myself next to him in the same sentence seems terribly strange), it probably didn't have a great impact on your game experience on the whole. So why should it matter?

yahtzee HAS influenced how i think about the games I play, and has encouraged me to look at different things. I've always had this burning feeling as I play games-- especially console games but also on the PC-- that games just aren't fun anymore; at least, not like they used to be. My favorite games are the simple 16 and 8 bitters.

On the other hand, I still play, and enjoy, several games he has trashed. It never made me like the game less, it did take away my complex of considering any game to be the best game ever (which all sane people agree is super metroid AMIRITE?)

Ragdrazi:

Amnestic:

Ragdrazi:

Amnestic:

When he did both the review and Mailbag Showdown I hadn't even played the game because it hadn't come out in the EU.

So do I trust you or do I trust Yahtzee who says in the beginning that he got an import copy of the game thanks to the charity of GAME TRAIDERS ROBINA?

You trust neither of us. Yahtzee hated SSBB, I quite enjoyed it when it finally came out about 3-4 months after the US release. Whatever Yahtzee and I thought (putting myself next to him in the same sentence seems terribly strange), it probably didn't have a great impact on your game experience on the whole. So why should it matter?

Well, because, you know, you've been just throwing around baseless hatred and wild-eyed accusations, and you seem to having a lot of fun doing it. I just figured maybe pointing it out would give you a second target to fling at, and maybe that'd let you have even more fun.

I've not made a single accusation against Yahtzee's character, if I have I fear I may have misspoken. All I've done is highlight possibilities. Personally I don't think Yahtzee would take bribes from game companies to change his critique of a game, I don't think he's that kind of guy , but nevertheless the possibility remains despite what I think and I have the good sense to look past my personal view to other things. The only thing I've said of Yahtzee is that he's human and he's as trustworthy as every other reviewer out there. Take that as you will, but he's no more or less than that.

Well, okay, he is admittedly funnier than most other reviewers I'll give you that, but nevertheless the serious point remains that the possibility will always exist and that will never go away.

I don't hate Yahtzee, I think he's probably a pretty cool guy and should I ever meet him (not likely) I'd hope that we'd get along despite his supposéd hatred of the human race. Again, all I've done is call into question people's own bias to hold him as infallible and highlight that he's as human as the rest of us and thus, could fall victim to greed, as well as pointing out that game companies have a good reason to try to corrupt him.

Ragdrazi:
Oh, crap. I see. No. One of my characteristic misreads. Never mind me. Sorry about that.

No worries, probably helped to clarify it into a shorter post rather than numerous posts over the last 3 pages anyway.

Susan Arendt:

GenHellspawn:
Yahtzee? The man that said a 3 hour long puzzle game with no multiplayer can be judged the height of gaming? The one who's never played the first two Fallouts before reviewing #3 (okay, that was kinda unnessecary, but come on)?

I think you lost me on how he was trustworthy.

So a game has to have multiplayer in order to be worthwhile?

Well, Max Payne had no multiplayer, and it was great. My point was, if your singleplayer is only going to be 3 hours long with nothing interesting to do besides listening to some text-to-speech voice (which admittedly had some rather funny dialogue), than you should at least have limited multiplayer. In fact, multiplayer in Portal would've actually made it quite good in my opinion, but aside from the ridiculously hard player-made levels, there's not much to do after you've beat the game.