Whose opinions on games should you trust?

Why, of course, from a source you've always trusted. Perhaps a person who plays same kind of games as you, or perhaps a favorite reviewer? And if nothing else, there's always sites like Metacritic to do the review score math for you.

Now sites like Metacritic have this base idea that "lots of different reviews and opinions" equals the "common base quality view of the game". If this end opinion were to come from a single source, a single person perhaps, what kind of person would that be? Is there more weight on a single persons opinion whose played thoroughly a lot of different type of games throughout his/her life, or, should there be a different specialist on different kind of genres of games?

The problem with the genre specialists come from the small view they usually have on the wide game industry. Example: A specialist on MMOs, RPGs and RTS games might just dislike FPS, Simulation and Indie games, and equally the other way around. And yet, these same specialist might be suddenly overjoyed from a simple included function within their type of games that other types of games have had for years.

Then again, when comparing a specialist to an all-round-gamer, many might say that this "all-round-fella" doesn't get the meaning of some games, or even say that the gamer doesn't play games seriously enough. The all-round-gamer might, however, point out many functions that this here triple-A game is acually missing.

As a conclusion to this I'll share my personal opinion. When considering games, the only kind of source/person whose opinion I think you should let yourself actually get influenced with is an all-round-specialist-gamer. And this doesn't have to be someone whose a total wizard in every type of game. Just someone who doesn't critisize any function on games without actually trying them out and, perhaps, even after several succeeded attemps with that function (no matter how difficult the hurdle is). And, because games evolve to sudden directions throughout the generations, the gamer should preferably have both knowledge on old and new games of the same genre and not be one of those who just think the old ones were better and ditch the new ones (or other way around).

All-in-all the most you will actually get out of an opinion on games, is more knowledge which to use when deciding wether to buy that next full-price game.

I only trust one person opinion and that is my own.

No one else can even come close to ever knowing what i will like and dislike about games, so why would i ever be a sheep and follow someone else.

@Jacanuk: Totally agree on that.

Yourself for the most part. If you want the game, buy it regardless and try it yourself.

Metacritic for an overall evaluation if you're sceptical on a game. This is what I do when the community or friends recommend games.

Bought some stinkers, but for the most part this system works.

Well said! All I need to see is actual gameplay footage....from there I can make up my "OWN" damn mind.

Sometimes even footage doesn't come close to actually playing the game myself.

It's not perfect- but Metacritic is the best source. The only real problem with metacritic is its "weight system". Where (for example) Gamespot's review counts more than other sources. So the score is not a PERFECT average... which bothers me. It's kind of an electoral college of scores based on how big a publication is.

Example: Gamespot scores a game a 50/100. Smaller website scores it 100. The score wont be a 75. It will dip towards the 50.

This is a nice sentiment but just not realistic. Games are $60 a piece. You really should be informed before you buy- and sometimes it's not enough to watch gameplay and not feel it for yourself. Of course I trust my own opinion... but there is a 60$ paywall in the way of me trying every release. (siding with @polishkid99 )

Other than my own? My friends or a number of written reviews. I never base a purchase of a game based off of one review, that would be pretty stupid. I do check metacritic or gamerankings before buying a game, unless it's a sequel to a franchise I really love. That did bite me in the ass though. I bought Resident Evil 6 hoping, just hoping, that it wasn't as bad as people were saying it was. I loved all of the main games prior to 6.

The score is the person or people opinion and the least important part of judging a game.

Games on PC are not 60$ anymore. Even on console you can often find a discount so it will be reduced price.

But i still stand with what i said, no one knows me better than myself, so why would i ever look anywhere else? not to mention that even if i did look at reviews, there is no where to look. Today most sites and even gamespot is doing personal opinion pieces more than actual reviews.

Also as to the cost it's about priorities.

I'd say about two parts my own opinion and one part professional reviewers, mostly Gamespot and Metacritic. Some of the obvious things I can form my own opinion on using previews, videos, and past experience. These may be things like graphics and such that can be easily observed. Other things though rely on someone who has actually experienced the game such as if the gameplay is broken or not, technical issues, story line problems, etc.

Of course nothing beats hands on but the next best thing for me is gameplay vids. I guess everyone has their own personal method, watching gameplay videos has worked 9-10 times for me.

I used to pay a lot of attention to the score reviewers gave games, but now I mainly watch gameplay videos (Quick Looks) to determine if the game is for me

I don't care for other peoples opinions on games, opinions are like *** holes, everyone has one.

I run aggregate scores through my own "preference filter." For example, Metacritic gives Game X a 74, but I hate that genre so I subtract 20. Or I love that franchise so I add 10. Or it's a Nintendo game and there was a GameSpot rating in there that surely messed the average so I add 30 because GameSpot.

Sometimes your gut just tells you if you're going to like a game. If a single review matches what you thought, you're usually fine to trust it. The reviewer probably has the same tastes as you. However, if your expectations aren't matched by the review, then you should check aggregators or other outlets.

Why don't you just ignore the number and actually read the review? The thing about well written reviews is that even if the reviewer loved the game and gave it a 10/10, it can still help you realise that maybe you won't like the game.

For me the worst thing about reviews (and gamers) are those that parrot the popular and commonly held beliefs about games and genres. As for the latter, if you hang around any given game site long enough, you'll pick up on who the popular posters are and their well-known opinions, and then you will see a lot of other posters lamely attempting to gain some of that attention by agreeing with them even when what was said is ridiculous. Reviewers are also capable of doing this to an extent.

That said, I mostly just go with my own opinion, based on research, past experiences and watching vids/trailers. I've never blindly bought a game, or been deterred away from a game simply because of some score it received.

I don't trust anyone's opinions on games unless I know them personally. Reviewers can be bought out. Lots of games have gotten 9/10 or 10/10 but didn't deserve them (I'm looking at you GTA 4).