Reviews?

Adagio · May 13, 2003, 12:40

Am I the only one who hates movie/game/what-so-ever reviews? It's often I see a review for a great movie/game, but the reviewer says: "Stay as far away from this as possible..."

I don't know anyone who agrees with most reviews... I have yet to read a review I agree with...

MikeH · May 13, 2003, 12:43

There are good reviews and bad ones. Learning which reviewers you agree with takes time. As does learning to interpret reviews.

GePap · May 13, 2003, 12:45

There are a few reviwers I trust, as long as I kow by what criteria they judge. I folow thier recommendations for movies I ha not heard about, or was sitting on the fence for (I would never fail to go see I movie I was dead set in seeing, or go to a movie I was dead set not going to see, based on a review).

Sava · May 13, 2003, 12:45

I like reviews that give in an depth-description of the game. I care more about what the game is about than whether or not the reviewer liked it. Overall, things that are critically acclaimed can also be absolutely stupid. Like "Titanic" for instance.

SlowwHand · May 13, 2003, 12:46

Movie reviewers have the most non-working job around.
Why should anyone care what they think ?

Ever watch the now Ebert and Roper ?
Like they agree a lot.

Boris Godunov · May 13, 2003, 12:47

I tend to take in a lot of reviews and average them out. I wouldn't trust any single review for how a game actually is. For movies, I find www.rottentomatoes.com vital, as it gives a good average of what people say about movies.

I think reviews tend to be too negative these days, as critics try to one-up each other with the wittiest put-downs and catty remarks. They love to pan because they get to be oh-so-clever. At the same time, many "critics" are so unthinkingly non-critical of crap that it's frustrating. How else can you explain how films like Titanic and Gladiator were critically-acclaimed overall?

Sava · May 13, 2003, 12:51

MAXIMUS MAXIMUS MAXIMUS!

loinburger · May 13, 2003, 12:52

I like reviewers only after I've learned their reviewing style. F'rinstance, when Siskel was still alive, I'd always avoid a movie if he gave it 4 stars (because it would be an arty boring piece of ****) but would go to a movie if he gave it 3 stars, and would always ignore his reviews for comedies (unless he gave the comedy 4 stars, in which case it must not be funny). I would trust Ebert's 3 1/2 star reviews almost to a T, because it would mean that the movie was fantastic but not sufficiently "serious" for him to give it a 4 star rating, whereas the movies that he gave 4 stars were sometimes acceptable (I'd always check to see what Siskel gave it -- if he gave it 4 stars too, then it would be an arty boring piece of ****, and I'd avoid it).

I still haven't figured out Roper (or is it Roeper? Whatever) though. He seems to agree with Ebert too often for the tag team to be very useful.

Ming · May 13, 2003, 12:58

Personal tastes are just that... I don't trust anybody to really be able to give me an accurate opinion on whether I will like something (However, for some strange reason, I can usually trust Rah's opinion on things like books, movies, and music, so he is the exception

)

There are a few movie reviewers though who I can count on to give me good advice. If they say the movie sucks because all the movie has is "good special effects, gratuitous sex scenes, and a lot of action, but nothing else", I know I should go see it

Shi Huangdi · May 13, 2003, 13:00

Movie reviews are rarely trustworthy. Computer Game reviews, OTOH, are usually important tools to avoid wastin money on crappy games.

Ming · May 13, 2003, 13:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Computer Game reviews, OTOH, are usually important tools to avoid wastin money on crappy games.

You mean like all those GREAT reviews of Civ III and Moo3...

Az · May 13, 2003, 13:13

he did say "usually", Ming...

Adagio · May 13, 2003, 13:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Movie reviews are rarely trustworthy. Computer Game reviews, OTOH, are usually important tools to avoid wastin money on crappy games.

Well... If I were to trust all computer game reviews, then The Sims would be the best game ever made, while Civ2 shouldn't have been released...

Gatekeeper · May 13, 2003, 13:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
MAXIMUS MAXIMUS MAXIMUS!

YAH!!!! **roars** I'm now one with the Roman citizenry!!!

Gatekeeper

Straybow · May 13, 2003, 13:40

I felt CG did a fairly accurate review of Civ3. They drastically underestimated how much culture flipping and unmitigated corruption would irritate a certain fraction of Civvers.

I still haven't waded into MoO3, so I don't know how their reviews stack up. I haven't gone to the MoO3 forum here since the first week the game came out (at which time I found very little useful info).

I won't be buying any games for a while. Got a new car

, no money left

.

Boris Godunov · May 13, 2003, 13:49

I thought Moo3's reviews have overall been fairly dismal, haven't they?

loinburger · May 13, 2003, 14:10

The ones I've seen have been pretty dismal. They all say "If you like spreadsheet games, then this is the game for you!", and then show several screenshots of Moo3 spreadsheets. That would've been enough for me (even if I hadn't been tracking the devolution of that game).

Civ3, OTOH, got the highest review ever from PC Gamer. "We gave Civ a good review, and we gave Civ II an even better review, so why mess with tradition?"

Q Classic · May 13, 2003, 14:22

it's interesting. i have a friend who is a self-styled movie critic; i know to stay away from any movie he calls "cute and enjoyable", and to watch any movie he generally dislikes-- i.e., he found "legally blonde" amusing, which i found godawful (which, after i told him so, he went and changed his opinion by digging up an article that said it was a racist tract), and yet he found "amorres perros" a disappointment.

'course, he and i are sometimes in accordance as in the case of "crazy/beautiful", which we both disliked, and "waking life", which we agreed was worth seeing at least once.
but i generally follow the rule--if it's a hit that he doesn't like, it's worth five bucks to see it in the theatre (sw2, x2), if it's a hit that he does, to stay away from it.

Alex · May 13, 2003, 15:08

I don't trust in any reviews. That said, I read them all.

Boris Godunov · May 13, 2003, 15:15

I think Civ3 is more worthy of good reviews than Moo3 is, personally. Hell, I still get a lot of enjoyment out of it.

Alex · May 13, 2003, 15:20

Yep. Comparing both games (Civ3 and MOO3) is almost an insult.

Skanky Burns · May 13, 2003, 15:21

Civ 3 had that "one more turn" feeling turing the first 100 or so turns. You can understand why reviewers gave it such high scores.

I read a few reviews (generally ones by the public - not critics) and that helps form my opinion on whether to try the game or not. This saved me from MoO3, for instance.

For movies, I generally go or not based on the previews.

jdd2007 · May 13, 2003, 15:35

MoO 3 got awful reviews, from what I have seen. Civ3 had mixed, and PC Gamer, by the way, gave it a reasonably high score.

Movie critics dont know **** about whats funny and what isn't.

St Leo · May 13, 2003, 18:17

The Filthy Critic is my movie review site of choice. Of course, one has to remember to double his score of anything resembling sci-fi.

I find newsgroups such as comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic much more useful for juding the worthiness of games than any professional review.

Adagio · May 14, 2003, 05:48

Quote:

Originally posted by loinburger
The ones I've seen have been pretty dismal. They all say "If you like spreadsheet games, then this is the game for you

Now, if danish review'ers would just say that... In DK they all say: "If I like it, everybody likes it... if I hate it, everbody hates it"... and generally the oppinion on TBS/RTS games is pretty low here... I only know one person in this country who plays RTS/TBS games regulary... and that's me...

Would have been much better if they, in their reviews, added: "If you're into this type of games, then the game might be something to you"... but they don't...

Nubclear · May 14, 2003, 05:56

Hmm....I trust Kazaa for all my reviewing needs

connorkimbro · May 14, 2003, 06:26

i trust game reviews from certain sources. for example, PC Gamer sometimes gets reviews right on, they usually suck ass though. Computer gaming world, on the otherhand, i almost always agree with.

TheStinger · May 14, 2003, 06:40

Reviewers talk crap, when Oasis released their second album it got panned by the critics, it then went on to sell millions. Within a year of its release it was being hailed as a great album.

Star Wars was IIRC regarded as completes shite on its release, now it is regared as a classic.

Now wheteher you agree with original review or the changed position doesn't undermine the fact that critics basicly make it up as they go along.

Q Classic · May 15, 2003, 16:33

i dunno...

star wars still sucks-- the only reason why it's classic is that it, like the matrix, was so damn cool.

Imran Siddiqui · May 15, 2003, 16:39

I trust most reviews, taken together as a whole. You have to see trends. And then there are some review sites that I trust very much so.

Quote:

Star Wars was IIRC regarded as completes shite on its release, now it is regared as a classic.

It still is complete shite as a story telling movie. The only think saving it is that it was so damn cool in special effects.