My bad...I meant magazines or sites(including digital magazines), and mostly meant the bigger ones(whose mags and sites were often heavily ad laden and biased towards games they were likely paid to review in a positive light).

Yeah, there were and are still some independent sites out there with some integrity left....sadly though, it seems to lessen with each passing year.


=================

Some mags hide their actual reviews or "disses" in "code"? Didn't know that(or if I did I forgot)....so thanks for the info.

Absolutely.

Will have to look up the "code" itself later on...as it's hard for me to be sure I discern what they mean in full. It seems to have produced interesting reviews, though. :)

i found that over the years i became better at judging titles from the start then relying on reviews, reviews always have been more of a ' good read experience ' that don't really serve a function. As with most the addition of an aquired taste comes into play and serves most people i belief fairly well. There are always let downs or moments when the inner collector takes over but even those urges can be tackled with keeping a well administrated account and some breathing exercises right before the moment of purchases....

" in ......... out ... "
" in ......... out ... "
" who am i ? "
" what do i need ? "
" is there really room ? "

etc etc,

Still in a sort of objective manner i have to disagree with the less trustworthiness of the magazines reviewers. When carefully observed the distinction between ego manipulation and fair review becomes pretty obvious ;) simply said if an article leaves you with the desire to buy a game you can be sure your fucked

Lately my only worries concern the difficulty and complexity level of titles that interest me. " will i feel overwhelmed by this specific challenge? am i in possesion of enough fortitude to withstand the madness this supergenius will throw at me ? "

Nitpick: Entertainment can be a function. ;)

I didn't mean all of them, but a good number were actually caught taking swag/money/"favors" for good reviews(it's a good part of why the whole gmr-gate thing started).

To some this is true and works....but sadly many are easily led and swayed.

My worry is "Can I finish a good chunk of this backlog while still alive and kicking?" o.0

I already gave up magazine (off and online version) reviews and rely more on youtubers who play the first 10 to 30 minutes of that game giving us first impression. It was more honest and not as manipulative as curated reviews. I know it's a spoiler but knowing how shady some game producers are I'm not going to spend 30 to 60 bucks on crap.

Don't buy this shit it doesn't work!!!!!!1

(Only has game on Steam where you have to fix it yourself to get it to run but forgot to mention this crucial detail.)

you can't!!! :p

I think the most unhelpful are one word reviews, like "Awesome!!!" or "Garbage!!!" At least from the other ones you can gather something about the game or the reviewer - which doesn't automatically make them good or helpful, most of the things described in the OP aren't great, but they give you *some* perspective, even if it's just: This reviewer is a nutjob. ;)

Instead of a maximum character limit, I'd put a minimum one... Frankly, for anything that'd in any way count as a review, I'd set it around what the maximum one is now, but should at the very least be a couple hundred...

''This game has DRM, do not buy'' when it's flat-out false, like with Age of Wonders 3. The game brings up a window asking you to log in but you can skip it and play no matter what.

Might be some of those who find galaxy to be DRM, at least for some of those.

Or it might be somewhat valid, as in the case of FEAR's DRM remnants.

Yeah, those are always a confusing lark.