Caliostro:

Amnestic:

Do you know that Yahtzee delivers that? How do you know that he's not being told to give some extra criticism to a game to generate a bit more flow traffic for the Escapist? Or that a game developer slipped him a few hundred Australian dollars to embellish a few extra points of their game?

You don't, the only thing you have to go on is some ridiculous trust you've placed in some guy you've never met and the word of said guy you've never met. For all you and I know he could be as corrupt as Gamespot. He attracts people with bile and has the freedom to occasionally remark on points he enjoys, as such he has more than enough freedom to take the money and never get caught out, no?

You have no bloody idea if "Yahtzee delivers that", and nor do I. Nor do I have any evidence or idea that he does not. The point is that the possibility exists and thus:
He is not reliable.

Think about it like this: Yahtzee you're not sure whether or not is "dirty", almost every other game magazine and website, you KNOW they are. Besides, have you listened to his reviews...? Or just trolling because you're bored? "Yes Yahtzee? This is Blizzard's CEO... We'd like to pay you a large sum to not trash our game as badly...."-abbawha?

I have actually played a few of the games he reviewed, and he was spot on. I actually listen to what he says and think whether it makes sense or not based on personal experience... I know it sounds complicated, but try to...

I'd ask if you bothered to read the rest of my post, but clearly you didn't, so here ya go:

Yeah, all opinions are subjective. We know. Want a cake? But here's the catch: a review should never be the deciding factor in you buying a game or not just because of the reviewer gave it a certain score or thumbs up/down. A review should let you know what someone else liked and disliked in the game and why, so you can have a better idea of whether or not your opinion might be similar.

When a reviewer says "this game is a 9.7/10! GO BUY IT!" it means NOTHING. It's merely an indicator of a poor review. When a review says "The combat in this Final Fantasy game was bad because it was like all other FF games!" it tells you something: "Do you like FF combat in previous editions? Yes? Then this should be good. No? Then you probably won't like this one either."

There ya go.

I didn't feel the need to respond to the rest of your post. Your second paragraph was stating exactly what I stated with a tad more explanation added to it. Your third was just talking about quality of reviews. Neither said anything about Yahtzee's reliability or trustworthiness which is what I'm calling into question here.

Want a reason why people would pay Yahtzee to give good reviews? Look no further than the Escapist News. 7400% increase in sales for painkiller after his positive review. Are you trying to honestly tell me that a games publisher won't see that and say "Hang on a sec, I think we might have something here..."

You say "You played some of the games he reviewed and he was spot on." But, not to retread an argument, that's your opinion. I played some of the games he reviewed and found him to be wrong, I disagreed with him. Others I did agree on. That's just the way things go. He's not "Spot on", you just agree with him. There's an incredibly large difference when we're talking about critiquing a game.

As I look at the Need for Speed backdrop on this website, or the Mirror's edge backdrop on Gametrailers.... I find it humorous to think that any site making money from the developers parent company doesn't whore their scores upm for cash.

I find Gametrailers is great to get enough info on a game (the facts) to make my own educated assumption if a game is worth my money based on it filling my tastes. Do I trust their reveiws.... as much as the consumer should trust Wii to release an adult game....

Truthfully ZP is the only "critic" ATM that can change my mind on a game... but he doesn't score said games. Basicly he says to me... your over 30 and like games.... these are reasons to try this one, or these are humorous things about this one you shouldn't spend a dime on.... do I need a score to tell me how good or bad a game is.... NOOOOOOOOOOOOO. All I need is someone with a like minded opinion telling me if I should try it. Maybe that's just my simple mind though.

Amnestic:

I didn't feel the need to respond to the rest of your post. Your second paragraph was stating exactly what I stated with a tad more explanation added to it. Your third was just talking about quality of reviews. Neither said anything about Yahtzee's reliability or trustworthiness which is what I'm calling into question here.

Erm. No. What you said was "Don't trust nobody or anything and specially not yahtzee". Not quite what I said.

Amnestic:
Want a reason why people would pay Yahtzee to give good reviews? Look no further than the Escapist News. 7400% increase in sales for painkiller after his positive review. Are you trying to honestly tell me that a games publisher won't see that and say "Hang on a sec, I think we might have something here..."

You say "You played some of the games he reviewed and he was spot on." But, not to retread an argument, that's your opinion. I played some of the games he reviewed and found him to be wrong, I disagreed with him. Others I did agree on. That's just the way things go. He's not "Spot on", you just agree with him. There's an incredibly large difference when we're talking about critiquing a game.

Ok, let me be a bit more specific.

There are opinions, and there are facts. You have to filter out his opinions and keep in mind the facts.

For example: If Yahtzee says "I think EVE online isn't fun", it's an opinion. However, when he said "the interface could only be any less intuitive if it was at the bottom of a fucking well" it's a fact! One wrapped in an hyperbole, but a fact nonetheless. You may think the game is good regardless or you may think that it's a piece of shit, but nobody can deny the interface is unintuitive. It's easily verified by turning on the game.

Was portal good? Questionable. Was portal original? Undoubtedly. Was Portal short? Equally undoubtedly.

And this is what Yahtzee does: "(A) was like this, (B) was like this, I enjoyed (A), however (B) become a nuisance and (C) was just terrible as it did this."

The fact that I agree that opinion not based on anything is worthless is why I despise numerical reviews. They're based on a randomized variable.

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

I agree with the OP.

Considering that Yahtzee seems to compare games by the same standards that I do (ie, critical of tired game cliches, logical flaws, and archaic design conventions) I find his opinion very reliable.

I feel that reliability is something that each reader should decide for themselves as I probably wouldn't find your opinion on games very reliable in comparison.

Caliostro:

Amnestic:

I didn't feel the need to respond to the rest of your post. Your second paragraph was stating exactly what I stated with a tad more explanation added to it. Your third was just talking about quality of reviews. Neither said anything about Yahtzee's reliability or trustworthiness which is what I'm calling into question here.

Erm. No. What you said was "Don't trust nobody or anything and specially not yahtzee". Not quite what I said.

Amnestic:
Want a reason why people would pay Yahtzee to give good reviews? Look no further than the Escapist News. 7400% increase in sales for painkiller after his positive review. Are you trying to honestly tell me that a games publisher won't see that and say "Hang on a sec, I think we might have something here..."

You say "You played some of the games he reviewed and he was spot on." But, not to retread an argument, that's your opinion. I played some of the games he reviewed and found him to be wrong, I disagreed with him. Others I did agree on. That's just the way things go. He's not "Spot on", you just agree with him. There's an incredibly large difference when we're talking about critiquing a game.

Ok, let me be a bit more specific.

There are opinions, and there's facts. You have to filter out his opinions and keep in mind the facts.

For example: If Yahtzee says "I think EVE online isn't fun", it's an opinion. However, when he said "the interface could only be any less intuitive if it was at the bottom of a fucking well" it's a fact! One wrapped in an hyperbole, but a fact nonetheless. You may think the game is good regardless or you may think that it's a piece of shit, but nobody can deny the interface is unintuitive. It's easily verified by turning on the game.

Was portal good? Questionable. Was portal original? Undoubtedly. Was Portal short? Equally undoubtedly.

And this is what Yahtzee does: "(A) was like this, (B) was like this, I enjoyed (A), however (B) become a nuisance and (C) was just terrible as it did this."

The fact that I agree that opinion not based on anything is worthless is why I despise numerical reviews. They're based on a randomized variable.

So you're basing Yahtzee's reliability on spouting facts that every single other reviewer could tell you? That's hardly a good point to make considering you already made a point about how corrupt the other reviewers "have to be nice, and politically correct more often than not." However the point you made there was that they're nice, that doesn't mean they omit facts.

You can state as much as you want about Yahtzee stating facts as "telling it like it is", however you've done nothing to convince me he is any more reliable than any other reviewer out there which is the real question. Is he a 'better' critic than others? Perhaps, certainly more amusing and certainly someone who I listen to once a week. He is not, however, more or less reliable than any other critic or reviewer actually. You can bang on about anything else to the ends of the Earth but, to take your point and twist it around. That is fact.

I suppose he is reliable.
You can rely on him to:
Swear
Make reference to sex and sodomy
Include imp character things
Start and end with the music
ect.
However to say that a reviewer is reliable is a daft thing to say. Reviews are subjective, if someone says the same about every game then you'd wonder if they were being honest. Part of it is what they are expected to say. Like Yahtzee is expected to be pissy about a game.

WTEricson:
As I look at the Need for Speed backdrop on this website, or the Mirror's edge backdrop on Gametrailers.... I find it humorous to think that any site making money from the developers parent company doesn't whore their scores upm for cash.

I don't think that influences Yahtzee; I remember him saying in the EVE online review that he took the fact that they advertised on the escapist as a challenge ;)

Amnestic:
He is not, however, more or less reliable than any other critic or reviewer actually.

Due to the fact that his observations mirror mine, I find him more reliable than most. Same for Adam Sessler (i can imagine the sighs already.. LOL)... the minute Sessler ranted on "Metal Gear Solid: Sons of Liberty" for excessively long cut scenes and for having a contrived and pretentious narrative I was sold on that guy.

Most people that hate these two reviewers tend to be Japanophile fans anyways.

BallPtPenTheif:

Amnestic:
He is not, however, more or less reliable than any other critic or reviewer actually.

Due to the fact that his observations mirror mine, I find him more reliable than most. Same for Adam Sessler (i can imagine the sighs already.. LOL)... the minute Sessler ranted on "Metal Gear Solid: Sons of Liberty" for excessively long cut scenes and for having a contrived and pretentious narrative I was sold on that guy.

Most people that hate these two reviewers tend to be Japanophile fans anyways.

No, that means he's agreeable to you. Not reliable. Reliable to me means that he'll give you his honest opinion on a game and that you can trust that what he says is what he truly believes. In that respect he is no more reliable than any other reviewer out there.

I trust the Gamespy crew. I can't think of a single instance they've steered me wrong, and they're responsible for introducing me to a lot of hidden gems like Skygunner.

Why on earth must we not trust Yahtzee?
He gives his god's honest opinion Doesn't He? lol

Amnestic:

So you're basing Yahtzee's reliability on spouting facts that every single other reviewer could tell you? That's hardly a good point to make considering you already made a point about how corrupt the other reviewers "have to be nice, and politically correct more often than not." However the point you made there was that they're nice, that doesn't mean they omit facts.

You can state as much as you want about Yahtzee stating facts as "telling it like it is", however you've done nothing to convince me he is any more reliable than any other reviewer out there which is the real question. Is he a 'better' critic than others? Perhaps, certainly more amusing and certainly someone who I listen to once a week. He is not, however, more or less reliable than any other critic or reviewer actually. You can bang on about anything else to the ends of the Earth but, to take your point and twist it around. That is fact.

Well, I'm officially pissed... The forum glitched and "ate" my post...

Anyways, I'll make it short since you won't get it anyways:

No, that's an opinion.

Yahtzee's job and payment aren't tied to whatever companies think of them. Neither Yahtzee nor The Escapist rely on early copies or exclusive previews unlike most other magazines and websites. You're right, it's possible that they are "corrupted" by money or "favors to be named", so to speak, but, while that is merely speculation, and we do live, mostly, in a world where "innocent till proven guilty" stands, the simply fact is most other reviewers are bound to developers and do need these "perks". That alone means that, by definition, Yahtzee is more reliable than most other reviewers. And THAT is a fact.

Caliostro:

Amnestic:

So you're basing Yahtzee's reliability on spouting facts that every single other reviewer could tell you? That's hardly a good point to make considering you already made a point about how corrupt the other reviewers "have to be nice, and politically correct more often than not." However the point you made there was that they're nice, that doesn't mean they omit facts.

You can state as much as you want about Yahtzee stating facts as "telling it like it is", however you've done nothing to convince me he is any more reliable than any other reviewer out there which is the real question. Is he a 'better' critic than others? Perhaps, certainly more amusing and certainly someone who I listen to once a week. He is not, however, more or less reliable than any other critic or reviewer actually. You can bang on about anything else to the ends of the Earth but, to take your point and twist it around. That is fact.

Well, I'm officially pissed... The forum glitched and "ate" my post...

Anyways, I'll make it short since you won't get it anyways:

No, that's an opinion.

Yahtzee's job and payment aren't tied to whatever companies think of them. Neither Yahtzee nor The Escapist rely on early copies or exclusive previews unlike most other magazines and websites. You're right, it's possible that they are "corrupted" by money or "favors to be named", so to speak, but, while that is merely speculation, and we do live, mostly, in a world where "innocent till proven guilty" stands, the simply fact is most other reviewers are bound to developers and do need these "perks". That alone means that, by definition, Yahtzee is more reliable than most other reviewers. And THAT is a fact.

Ah, but can you prove it for "most other reviewers" besides saying them getting previews? Are they not "innocent til proven guilty" as well? You have no proof that the majority of reviewers are bound to developers, at best you can scrounge up maybe two or three sources. Everything else is circumstantial at best and almost certainly not a representation of the majority. Thus, once more, Yahtzee is the same as everyone else. Your romantic idea that he's somehow "above" other people because he "tells it like it is" won't change that.

You can prove that other magazines and websites use previews, however you can't prove that they rely on them. You're still failing to justify Yahtzee as more infallible than other people and the reason is simply because he is not. You completely glossed over my Painkiller point which actually makes him look a hell of a lot less reliable than other reviewers from now on now that people have named the "Yahtzee Effect". It's not surprising though, all things considered.

I should tell you now that anything you post further will be irrelevant, I'm done with this tedious argument. You're obviously too caught up in your idealistic notion that some Yahtzee is somehow more reliable than other critics to listen to me, so with that, I bow out on this derailed thread which is now a waste of my time.

Good day Sir.

I read reviews pretty often. But I only trust demos, because, really, you just can't tell whether you'll like a game based on whether someone else did.

Plus, I mostly play PC games, so trying the demo is always necessary to make sure the game actually works on my computer.

Even if we ignore the possibility of reviews being bought (which I don't buy into anyway,) Yahtzee is unreliable for several reasons. His reviews are coated in hyperbole sometimes scewing facts to the point that they barely apply. He has about as much blatant bias as you can muster against fighting games and RPGs, and he fails to fully explore every aspect of the games he reviews such as how he didn't talk about any of the material besides single player in Halo3 while making no attempt to understand the story.
He's pretty much as biased as a reviewer can get, but we love him for it.

mydogisblue:
I like Game Informer, I don't know about anyone else here on the Escapist but I like their reviews.

I just got the newest issue with Halo 3 Recon for the cover story, and it's a pretty good magazine.

Some of their jokes are kind of lame though.

You, my friend, have it backwerds. Game Informer is the only Game magazine that is full of amusing jokes. All others have jokes that come off as bland and awkward.

No gaming journalist is trustworthy, they will all have their own opinions, and while that is a good thing, it almost always get in the way of the reviews.

Either the person will be some corporate lapdog that will review every game he is told to and never gives a rating below a 2.

Or they are self centered know-it-alls that will only talk about games that they find interesting and won't give a rating better then a 2 to any game they personally don't like.

So don't follow people religiously and not even give a though to games that don't meet their standards, think for yourselves.

you really shouldnt trust anybody unless you absolutely have to, there is no way to be COMPLETELY sure, hell, how can you be sure this isnt just a (technology-wise)really well done simulation and the person your considering trusting isnt the one keeping you here, pulling all the strings and the cause of all the evil in what you consider to be the world? right, you can never be completely sure, and if you are, how do you know that its really YOU being sure, maybe its just them wanting to be sure... but im just a bit paranoid, the escapist in general seems to give reviews without bribes from the people who make the games. penny-arcade isnt horrible in that regard either but they have odd tastes and seem to enjoy lots of real crap.

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.

He also liked Call of Duty 4 (it appeared on one video, when he said "good games" and it showed the covers of Call of Duty 4 and Portal), Bioshock, Clear Sky, Painkiller and Army of Two (the last one was a joke ^^)

A lot of high horses around here.

Anyhoo, On Topic as they say:
I mostly always find independant journalists to be the more trustworthy. A very good example of this is a swedish site called Level7. While I don't agree with all of their reviews, it's easy to tell that it's their honest opinion through the way they write.
However, the major reason for why I enjoy Level7, and other sites like it, more than say Gametrailers, is the readers/viewers. Or rather: The commenting readers/viewers. I swear to God, the comments on Gametrailers are worse than on YouTube. Of course I can just choose not to read them, but if you even so much as glance at them, you (or atleast I) get filled with so much anger ("There can't possibly be that much stupidity in a single person, can there?").

I'll give Gametrailers one thing though (when it comes to reviews): The guy that voices them has got a very good voice for it. It's... comforting.

I wish people would stop with the "NO REVIEWS ARE RELIABLE GUYS" crap. If a game gets good reviews across the board, then it is probably a good game, possibly not for you, but still a good game that is well-designed and enjoyable to the majority. Since it is impossible to please everyone, it must be said that the most enjoyable game that is most well-recieved amongst reviewers is what constitutes as a "good" game. it just so happens that people like Yahtzee enjoy jumping on these reviews and bringing down the popular games with criticisms, which is fine. It's funny but I wouldn't take into account any of his points when buying a review as he focuses on a purely negative view of the game for most things and does not take into account the positives.

I will change my mind, however, and believe that all review are subjective if someone makes a convincing case for Big Rigs being better than, say, Half-Life.

Consider the gauntlet thrown down.

L.B. Jeffries:

Hearthing:

Although whoever said about all journalists being biased, totally right. Anything for the money.

What if they aren't making any money like the Escapist Guest Reviewers or the indie journos?

Knock off the money part, then, they're still biased. To be unbiased, you need a 1984 view toward everything. Sadly, none of us are from that great book, so we'll never know true balance in a topic.

I only really trust the people from here, Escapist. (and sometimes IGN)

Yahtzee's job is satire, he points out the flaws (sometimes unfairly) because if someone ISN'T hard on games they'll never get better. It's like having a natural predator, it speeds up evolution. He shouldn't be relied on too heavily though because in the end he's playing a CHARACTER for shits and giggles. And money. Like Steven Colbert!

I usually check a wide variety of reviews and user reviews, and look at Metascores and READ a sambling of the review links provided (a simple number cannot make a decision).

Richard Groovy Pants:
Yahtzee trustworthy? What?

Journalists trustworthy? What?

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

Richard Groovy Pants:
Yahtzee trustworthy? What?

Syphonz:
now why on gods green earth would yahtzee be reliable?

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

All four of these. Why on earth do you trust Yahtzee's criticism at all?

The way I see it, Yahtzee only recommended Bioshock, Prince of Persia, and Portal. Along with Grim Fandango and Dizzy... whatever, that leaves you with five games to play over and over. Have fun with that.

Since no one's said it yet: You can trust the boys at Rock, Paper, Shotgun - your one-stop-shop for all your PC gaming needs. Updated 2-3 times a day by four of the best gaming journalists and all-around good guys in the Britain. Podcasts! Forums! Reviews! Silly British humour! Unabashed PC snobbery! And all for the low, low price of 0$! What a bargain!

I don't know who exactly is trustworthy anymore. All I know is that 1up.com is NOT trustworthy, and I'm actually starting to lose faith in IGN. Other than that, I just look at collective scores from all ratings.

Not Good:

mydogisblue:
I like Game Informer, I don't know about anyone else here on the Escapist but I like their reviews.

I just got the newest issue with Halo 3 Recon for the cover story, and it's a pretty good magazine.

Some of their jokes are kind of lame though.

You, my friend, have it backwerds. Game Informer is the only Game magazine that is full of amusing jokes. All others have jokes that come off as bland and awkward.

Sorry about that, I probably should've been more clear with my statement.

But yeah, you're right, after looking through some of the previous issues I had remembered how funny some of their jokes were. But what I really meant about the lame jokes is when they sometimes try too hard and the jokes come off as, like you said, bland and awkward.

But don't get me wrong, I love GI, I think things like their Game Infarcer and Sacred Cow Barbecue segments are some of the funniest things I've ever read in any magazine. The only time I ever laughed at any other video game magazine's jokes was when I read Seanbaby's "Rest of the crap" segment in EGM, and even then, it felt a little forced.

I'm not going to say anything about Yahtzee's rants. I find games reviewers (independent ones) to be mostly trustworthy, but IGN suck, hype-mongers but I like gametrailers.

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.

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.

The answer is easily, none of them. The only reason why I like yahtzee, not just because he is funny, but because most of what he says about games, I find to be accurate(except he should have ass raped fallout 3).

Basically, go with whomever enjoys the same games as you. If a reviewer loved fallout 3 and oblivion and you did too, then that might be the right reviewer for you. If however the reviewer loved fallout 3 and oblivion and you hated both, then that reviewer is probably full of shit and you should look elsewhere.

The only game reviewer you should trust, Is Your Self.
NEVER EVER listen to what anyone else ever says about a game/movie/book about how good or bad it is!
All it will do is bias how YOU actually feel about it.
If you go in with a nuetral outlook on a game/movie/book, you will quite often find, that you will like it more when most people who are 'over hyped' about a game that simply, sucks leading to the inevitable 'downer' leading to a horrible fan rating.

However, if you go in thinking every game is going to suck, not be in any way shape or form entertaining, you won't be let down when you find that at least, most games are in some way, entertaining, if at least for 6 hours. And if you actually find a game that sucks going in beliving it will suck, it must have been a truelly horrendous game!

Also, I got Fallout 3 with out knowing much of anything about it, never played the previous titles, let alone read any of the reviews.
When I got it, its was 'alright' very 'oblivion-esque', and I enjoyed the gameplay, story was 'meh'. And thats just me....
But hey, any game you can decapitate someone, automatically jumps to an 85% score, or a B+. ;)