gaming Do you prefer independent YouTue game reviews, or Corporate game reviews?

[TheMisterManGuy 344]

Which is more reliable for you when deciding a game purchase? A well made, independent review from some guy on YouTube or GameFaqs, or editors from big name corporations like IGN, GameSpot, GameTrailers, etc. I'd honestly say the former, they come from actual people who played the game, and aren't afraid to highlight points the big name reviewers miss. Whereas the latter is most likely being endorsed by the game publisher to say a bunch of crap we already knew about the game, and glorify/exagerate all its positives or negatives beyond belief, to the point where it sounds incredibly unrealistic. If it's merely played for laughs, then it's not a problem (take Zero Punctuation for example), but if you're looking for a serious and honest review, its a big problem. Now obviously, there's going to be a few legitimately biased people out there, but most of the independent YouTube reviews of games I've seen were honest, and played straight.

[long gone 8,929]

Independent. They're more likely to tell the truth about how good or bad a game is rather than being a hype machine. That isn't to say that they don't have biases either, but I've found people like TotalBiscuit to be more truthful than the likes of... most of IGN and Gamespot. And Kotaku.

[Celtore 2,769]

I'm more trusting of independent sources. They aren't obligated to be bias free either, but I'll value their review slightly more than ign or GameSpot.

 

 

I usually try to find a few videos of the game, just to see what it's like for myself. Note: not trailers, actual gameplay. If I like what I see and the reviews are alright, I'll buy it.

[Megas 27,052]

Independent, especially with how stupid some "professional" reviews can get nowadays. Plus independent reviews feel a lot more genuine

Edited December 30, 2014 by Megas75

[Ashen Pathfinder 16,151]

I think it's best to go with both.

 

I mean yeah it's easy to see why independent reviewers might be the most reliable, but at the same time I can see them beings ones with an axe to grind and being more apt to review a game much more harshly than some professional reviewers. Conversely money does speak, so not all professional reviewers are reliable either.

 

In any case I'd say it's best to stick with both.

[FirstPonySpectre 176]

I personally like Independent Reviewers reviews. Especially the ones I know and love like ProJared or Angry Joe. But they can't review every single game there is, which is where the corporate reviewers come in. I watch a lot of IGN and Gamespot reviews because despite popular belief, if they rate a game something, you can have another opinion without getting butthurt about it! (It's shocking, I know.) It's just that corporations have the JOB to review every last game (Other than indie games. Though they do review some of them that have been hyped up enough like Shovel Knight and Bastion) that comes out and they deliver upon it. I do still prefer the longer and more in-depth reviews by Angry Joe and ProJared but I have to settle for basics sometimes. 

[Monotone 101]

I can agree with you here, in fact I think you'll be hard pressed finding someone who doesn't. 

 

But despite that, I think it's always best to at least watch a couple of 'corporate' reviews if you've become very interested in a game and need as much information as possible on it. 

 

Again, I find independent reviews more reliable, but it's still good to read up on some of the more placid and condensed reviews from larger sources to help summarize your view on a game. 

Edited December 30, 2014 by Monotone