Claymore 61 wrote:

Your friends that enjoy what you like in a game,are much better at picking out games that you would play than any reviewer ever could.

 MitchyD88 wrote:

Yep. No denying that. It's impossible for Fran to know how well you will like a game, hence why she shares her thoughts.

This is very true. The shortcut question becomes: Do you see OXM reviewers as trusted friends?

I have never seen it put better or more directly than Warren Spector explained it to Russ Pitts in an article at The Escapist:

 Russ Pitts wrote:

A review serves one purpose and one purpose only,” says Warren Spector, the legendary designer of System Shock, Thief and Deus Ex, “to give readers data they need to make a buy/no buy decision. End of story. To do that, the reviewer has to have a consistent editorial stance. It doesn’t matter if you agree with a reviewer on a particular game or movie or book or record as long as they’re consistent enough that you can determine from reading the review whether you would like the game, movie, book or record yourself. Reviewers and readers have to develop an ongoing relationship of sorts.

I seriously can't put it more clearly than that. Trust is something you develop -- whether it's your friend's gaming advice or a publication's gaming advice.

---

Dan Amrich, KOXM co-host and Retrologist Emeritus
New free shows every Friday at http://oxmpodcast.podbean.com

I use mags and their websites for screenshots and video only,for honest game reviews I turn to friends who have it on their playlists.

---

Enjoy my site,join if you want!!
http://www.yuwie.com/claymore61
New Gamer Blogs
GoW Layout

 Claymore 61 wrote:

I use mags and their websites for screenshots and video only,for honest game reviews I turn to friends who have it on their playlists.

So, in summary:

Your friends base their honest opinions on the games they've actually played, and then they tell you whether or not they like it.

OXM, meanwhile, bases its honest opinions on the games we've actually played, and then we tell you whether or not we like it.

Therefore, your friends are more trustworthy because they do exactly the same thing we do...? It sounds like there is bias at work here, but not on our end.

---

Dan Amrich, KOXM co-host and Retrologist Emeritus
New free shows every Friday at http://oxmpodcast.podbean.com

 Dan OXM wrote:

 Claymore 61 wrote:

I use mags and their websites for screenshots and video only,for honest game reviews I turn to friends who have it on their playlists.

So, in summary:

Your friends base their honest opinions on the games they've actually played, and then they tell you whether or not they like it.

OXM, meanwhile, bases its honest opinions on the games we've actually played, and then we tell you whether or not we like it.

Therefore, your friends are more trustworthy because they do exactly the same thing we do...? It sounds like there is bias at work here, but not on our end.

I think there's more of the stage of the relationship at that point, Dan. Yeah, both of you would be doing the same thing, but if you were to choose between what one of your readers said and what Paul said, who would you trust more? Considering both did exactly the same thing in reviewing a game and came up with different results, or even the same results, I'm assuming you'd go more for Paul because you have more of a relationship there.

I think that's where Clay is trying to get at; however... if you've been reading the mag for more than a year and take into consideration that most (if not all) have had a LOT of experience in gaming, their reviews aren't going to be full of s***. You just have to take everything into account. To say that someone buys every game that's 8.5 and above is BS, and someone who refuses to rent anything less than a 6.5 is bogus. You just have to take the matters into your own hand and make the choice.

OXM gives some background, as does IGN, Gamesradar, etc. If you're a smart and informed consumer, you buy/rent the game that will be the most worth for your money. That worth can only be determined by you. So trust the mag, don't trust the mag, but do use the mag. It can give you a lot more information than any of your buddies can... unless they work at a developer or Microsoft.

---

If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion. -DL

 Dan OXM wrote:

 Claymore 61 wrote:

I use mags and their websites for screenshots and video only,for honest game reviews I turn to friends who have it on their playlists.

So, in summary:

Your friends base their honest opinions on the games they've actually played, and then they tell you whether or not they like it.

OXM, meanwhile, bases its honest opinions on the games we've actually played, and then we tell you whether or not we like it.

Therefore, your friends are more trustworthy because they do exactly the same thing we do...? It sounds like there is bias at work here, but not on our end.

There is,my friends don't get paid for their opinions.

---

Enjoy my site,join if you want!!
http://www.yuwie.com/claymore61
New Gamer Blogs
GoW Layout

And OXM doesn't get paid by game companies for their opinions either.

They get paid by you the consumer and from ad revenue (and before you say that the game companies pay through ads, the ad department and the reviewers are totally seperate and don't have anything to do with each other).

So really they get paid for their honesty and expertiese.

---

OXM FAQs:
Mag
Disc

Because someone is paid to write their thoughts it's objectionable? Developers make the games they think are rad. Do you condemn them for being paid to make what is, in their opinion, a good game? Writers write what they think until they're satisfied with a review. If you're so vehemently against being paid to create something you think is good, why do you play games at all?

---

DownWriteFierce - 31 reviews in 31 days during May!

 MitchyD88 wrote:

Because someone is paid to write their thoughts it's objectionable? Developers make the games they think are rad. Do you condemn them for being paid to make what is, in their opinion, a good game? Writers write what they think until they're satisfied with a review. If you're so vehemently against being paid to create something you think is good, why do you play games at all?

The part in bold doesn't make sense,ppl play games they enjoy,they pay for the games,they do not get paid to play.Some developers make bad games and still get paid.no one is against them thinking they are good,but as consumers we have our own opinion as to what we want to spend our cash on.If we prefer to listen to friends over reviewers,then that is just the way we choose.You can trust reviewers if you want,and there is nothing wrong with that.

What does the choice to choose a free honest opinion,instead of a paid opinion have to do with playing games?

---

Enjoy my site,join if you want!!
http://www.yuwie.com/claymore61
New Gamer Blogs
GoW Layout

I mean because developers do something similar, albeit on a different scale. I had a hard time trying to convey that point and I guess it still isn't clear.

---

DownWriteFierce - 31 reviews in 31 days during May!

I have nothing against writters being paid for their work, after all I like getting paid for my work, and in the end a lot of my job is rendering my opinion on Security Incidents and reports, very similiar to a game reviewer, except, I am not trying to convey my opinioin to an audience of consumers, but to a group of policy makers and security experts, my peers.  And they are a pretty tough crowd.  Although I have thought about adapting a points based system.......I rate this threat a  5.7?

Orion Nights

---

Facebook

But that's the crux of (one part of) the issue. How does a number system truly convey what is going on? If I tell you a level ten is the max threat, what does that constitue? The building will explode / Mole people will rise from the ground / ZOMBIES! All of those would (somewhat) be a ten in my book. Yes, OXM explains what they're numbers mean, but games are becoming more varied that a 7 for one genre could mean an 8 for another.

Frankly, I read the little +/- next to the number to really get a feel for the review. Then when I have time, I read about it in the whole thing. The number really does nothing for me.

On being paid, do you think consultants should not be paid? It's pretty much paying for information from someone with years of experience either way. Yes, your friend is cheaper and more accessible, but does he really have the experience that the OXM staff combined has? If you really don't care for experience, then that's fine. Look at the pretty pictures then.

---

If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion. -DL

I have a friend that says all games that score below a 9 on IGN and Game Informer suck. Yeah, like I'm going to listen to him... Some friends are incredibly biased with their judgements, which is why magazines like Game Informer and OXM exist.

And I have a friend who loves a very specific set of games and hates the rest. He doesn't come to me for much advice, and I don't go to him. We meet in the middle with stuff we have in common.

Friends are a viable source, but not always a reliable one. Same goes for critics.

---

DownWriteFierce - 31 reviews in 31 days during May!

I love review talk.  Let's talk about why this question even gets asked.  Foremost, it isn't wildly understood that a review is subjective and is not objective.  For those that do understand that reviews are subjective, the question of developing trust in what you are reading, must then be asked.  Every reviewer, reader, and person, has their own unique experience when playing a game, reading a book, etc.  Once we are able to develop this understanding, we are able to throw out the wild rantings of a "fanboy" and take into account the complaints of a review from someone who disagrees. 
One of the most recent OXM related discrepancies I can think of(certainly not the last), is when Megan Whatt reviewed Dead Space.  She gave the game a 6.5 which according to metacritic, was the lowest score given by any reviewer.  Now as many of us on these forums know, that OXM's review process is somewhat of a collective agreement of what a score should be.  I am not certain on how exactly this process works, but in the long term, it has Megan's name on it and "her" score.  It is assumed by many that it was her doing.  Even though Dan, Mitch, and others came out and said that it is a collaberative score, it is still Megan who will be doing the development of "trust" in this particular review. 
I mention the previous review, because the more interesting question to all of this, is "Why did this user have such poor experience with this game compared to others?"  After reading her review, I think the problem was that the score was on the bottom extreme is what bothered those that came out in droves to respond specifically to that review.  The review was fine and she made her point, it was the numeric value that sent everyone into a tizzy. 

---

 Bill wrote:

Pills here!

 Claymore 61 wrote:

my friends don't get paid for their opinions.

I suspect they would if they could. Maybe you too.

You make it sound like I'm a prostitute or something. The only thing we have in common is that we both find parts of our work quite pleasurable.

---

Dan Amrich, KOXM co-host and Retrologist Emeritus
New free shows every Friday at http://oxmpodcast.podbean.com

 RK1 BulletBait wrote:

I have a friend that says all games that score below a 9 on IGN and Game Informer suck. Yeah, like I'm going to listen to him... Some friends are incredibly biased with their judgements, which is why magazines like Game Informer and OXM exist.

 MitchyD88 wrote:

Friends are a viable source, but not always a reliable one. Same goes for critics.

It all goes back to the name of this topic. You have to build trust, regardless of whether your data is coming from a media source or a circle of friends or whatever. You develop relationships, you learn tastes, and you build trust.

Consider this: A low review from a reviewer you know you do not often agree with is still useful -- you'd probably like it. (Paul and I happen to be this way on music and we have come to trust each other's negative instincts!) Maybe the reviewer didn't say what you wanted to hear, but you were still able to use that information to help make your decision. "Well, so and so said it was great, but the other guy said it sucked, but I find I don't agree with him much anyway." You know that because you have built a relationship. It's not a contest of who is more right; it's information, and you are weighing its importance accordingly.

Of course...if you turn around and use that same untrusted source's high score to support the fact that "you are right" about a game ("I have screamed for years about how OXM sucks, but they liked the game I've been looking forward to, so suddenly they're okay"), then you're a hypocrite.  But we're not going there.  :)

---

Dan Amrich, KOXM co-host and Retrologist Emeritus
New free shows every Friday at http://oxmpodcast.podbean.com

 Dan OXM wrote:

 Claymore 61 wrote:

my friends don't get paid for their opinions.

Never Fear your paying for your friends opinion, I dont know about you, but some of my friends are taxing and require feeding from time to time. 

I suspect they would if they could. Maybe you too.

You make it sound like I'm a prostitute or something. The only thing we have in common is that we both find parts of our work quite pleasurable.

Oh, my dream job......loving pretty women and getting paid to boot.  Of course, given my shape and age.....I would be unemployed.

Orion NIghts

---

Facebook

Well I'll just say I trust OXM. If I reviewed a game, 90% of the time my own score of a game would be the same as OXM's give or take a 0.5 once in a while, although the reasons why might be different. I trust the editors, but not the freelancers as much, simply because a lot of them come and go, while most of the editors stay (I've noticed the staff member bar has grown a bit smaller in the Meet the Team section) for the long haul. I've been reading OXM for years, 5 this year, and I've gotten used to how the editors like Paul and Ryan view games and write about them. Other reviewers like Meghan Watt I didn't get used to simply because she didn't stay for a great period of time, and I believe she's already moved on. I'm starting to get accustomed to Taylor, thankfully, and now Mike. It's not Meghan's fault, it's just her job. That was my two pennies.
Anyway, I'm lookin' forward to the next issue, LOL.

My question is this: Do we not trust freelancers because we see them less often than people who work at OXM full time or because they are free-lancers? Or is that a redundant question?

---

If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion. -DL

I have to say, I trust the OXM freelancers, they may have more time to actually play the game they review, maybe not all the time, but at least some of the time. Take Mitchy , he and I have similar tastes in games. I do trust his reviews. I cannot name any of the other freelancers, but so far, I have found nothing to distrust them.

---

MyTwitter.

 Dan OXM wrote:

 Claymore 61 wrote:

my friends don't get paid for their opinions.

I suspect they would if they could. Maybe you too.

You make it sound like I'm a prostitute or something. The only thing we have in common is that we both find parts of our work quite pleasurable.

In a way you are,instead of renting out your body you rent out your creativity,or thoughts on assignments given to you by your pimpblusher,you knock on forum threads showing ppl how attractive your words are and if they like what they see,there are more of your friends who have collection of stories and essays in a magazine which you can purchase.

Anyway no matter what anyone says against media in this thread,it will always be followed by a person or persons trying to make OXM notice them by saying how much they adore this or that contributer to the mag.The bottom line for alot of gamers in general is they do not trust the media.Friends do have a better sense of what their friends will like,there may be a few who might steer you in the wrong direction on occasion,but for the most part they are alot more reliable than some writer that relies on selling his point for a living.

---

Enjoy my site,join if you want!!
http://www.yuwie.com/claymore61
New Gamer Blogs
GoW Layout

Something smells a little Kagey here. Anyone else smell it?

---

MyTwitter.

Nah, not that stink, Juggler. He doesn't smell, to me, just a little caustic.

You must have some good friends then, Clay. That's great; don't give then up. Yet, I can't help think that you believe there's a conspiracy happening, like pharmacists giving kickbacks to doctors. I say that I trust the mag enough, but it isn't that I'm giving up my free will to them. I use it as a tool, like you do with your friends. So chill a little: this isn't meant to be a throwdown between editors and readers. Just a discussion, perhaps staying away from hookers and conspiracies.

---

If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion. -DL

Anyone else read the new Dynasty Warriors Gundam 2 review on the OXM site? I finished reading it a moment ago and found myself to be a bit puzzled, since it received a 5 but the first DWG received a 6.
One of the "+"s is that it has "major" improvements over the first DWG. The only "-" is that it has the same old, same old gameplay of the DW franchise. Ryan King does not really say why it is so bad other than it being like every other DW game but with robots (BTW mobile suits are not "robots"). He says some good things about it, saying how a few of the gameplay mechanics from the first game have been fixed. So I am confused a bit on how Ryan K. sees this game. It sounds a lot better than the first DWG game but yet it gets a lower score. Perhaps King didn't enjoy the first DWG in the first place? Personally I'd have the same guy who reviewed the first DWG review the sequel to not confuse people like this. If King WAS the guy who did the first review then I will be truly stumped. Also, 5 points taken off this game for the same old same old gameplay? WTH? Something is not right... So it might be gameplay, but that's the only thing wrong described in the review. Maybe a 6.5 or a 6, but not a 5 for just some repetitive gameplay.
I'll have to try it out for myself....

I still read the reviews and check out screenshots,then I compare writers opinions to friends and base my purchase on the balance of input I received.

A example is the new arcade FF game,while it received alot of bad reviews from websites and magazines alot of my friends love it,and I too enjoyed the demo alot,plus there is a thread where alot of forum members are expressing their opinions on the bad press it got,and they all are saying they thought the reviewers never really gave the game a fair shake.

---

Enjoy my site,join if you want!!
http://www.yuwie.com/claymore61
New Gamer Blogs
GoW Layout

 Claymore 61 wrote:

 Dan OXM wrote:

You make it sound like I'm a prostitute or something.

In a way you are,instead of renting out your body you rent out your creativity,or thoughts on assignments given to you by your pimpblusher...some writer that relies on selling his point for a living.

So...you don't trust me because I get paid to write reviews. By that logic, a chef would be a prostitute for his food, so there's no way to trust that his food tastes good. Even if it does, well, the proof is apparently not in the ACTUAL pudding, because the chef who made it was paid to make it for the customers, so it must be lousy food. This is kinda silly, and not actually how the working world works. (As others have noted, I am paid by a magazine publisher, not a game publisher, and if I compromise myself and don't represent the interest of the readers, the readers go away.) Some people provide goods; others provide services. It's okay to be paid to provide either one. If you can find a way to make it through life that requires neither, let us all know.

Bottom line, no, you don't have to trust what I'm saying in a review. But I would expect that you read it and then decide. What gets me riled is the automatic rejection of an opinion because it comes from the media. The media, you suggest, is not to be trusted. But where's the proof for that theory? Why are you applying a prejudice against me as "the media" if you're not even reading what I write? You're not judging my work on its own merits. If you do read what I write and then say "This is something I disagree with based on its content," then you've got every right to say "I do not trust that writer." Anything else is...biased. And now I'm repeating myself.

I've heard some scary prejudice in the past -- stuff like "She's black, but she's nice." I hate that. And honestly, what you're suggesting is a stone's throw from that -- bias first, personal experience second. I can't be an honest writer because I'm a member of the media? That's simply not fair, but it's also something I disprove with every review I write.

---

Dan Amrich, KOXM co-host and Retrologist Emeritus
New free shows every Friday at http://oxmpodcast.podbean.com

 Claymore 61 wrote:

I still read the reviews and check out screenshots,then I compare writers opinions to friends and base my purchase on the balance of input I received.

A example is the new arcade FF game,while it received alot of bad reviews from websites and magazines alot of my friends love it,and I too enjoyed the demo alot,plus there is a thread where alot of forum members are expressing their opinions on the bad press it got,and they all are saying they thought the reviewers never really gave the game a fair shake.

This is a great example of reviewers trying to steer the public away from a awesome game.

---

Enjoy my site,join if you want!!
http://www.yuwie.com/claymore61
New Gamer Blogs
GoW Layout

 Dan OXM wrote:

 Claymore 61 wrote:

 Dan OXM wrote:

You make it sound like I'm a prostitute or something.

In a way you are,instead of renting out your body you rent out your creativity,or thoughts on assignments given to you by your pimpblusher...some writer that relies on selling his point for a living.

So...you don't trust me because I get paid to write reviews. By that logic, a chef would be a prostitute for his food, so there's no way to trust that his food tastes good. Even if it does, well, the proof is apparently not in the ACTUAL pudding, because the chef who made it was paid to make it for the customers, so it must be lousy food. This is kinda silly, and not actually how the working world works. (As others have noted, I am paid by a magazine publisher, not a game publisher, and if I compromise myself and don't represent the interest of the readers, the readers go away.) Some people provide goods; others provide services. It's okay to be paid to provide either one. If you can find a way to make it through life that requires neither, let us all know.

Bottom line, no, you don't have to trust what I'm saying in a review. But I would expect that you read it and then decide. What gets me riled is the automatic rejection of an opinion because it comes from the media. The media, you suggest, is not to be trusted. But where's the proof for that theory? Why are you applying a prejudice against me as "the media" if you're not even reading what I write? You're not judging my work on its own merits. If you do read what I write and then say "This is something I disagree with based on its content," then you've got every right to say "I do not trust that writer." Anything else is...biased. And now I'm repeating myself.

I've heard some scary prejudice in the past -- stuff like "She's black, but she's nice." I hate that. And honestly, what you're suggesting is a stone's throw from that -- bias first, personal experience second. I can't be an honest writer because I'm a member of the media? That's simply not fair, but it's also something I disprove with every review I write.

You bought up the prostitute comparison not me,I only tried to compare what you thought I was trying to say.You do have the gift of spin,very well done,you post a comparison,I write how it is possible,you make it sound like it was my idea originally.You could be a writer for Fox News or Rush Limbaugh,send them your resume along with this thread.

---

Enjoy my site,join if you want!!
http://www.yuwie.com/claymore61
New Gamer Blogs
GoW Layout

 Claymore 61 wrote:

 Claymore 61 wrote:

I still read the reviews and check out screenshots,then I compare writers opinions to friends and base my purchase on the balance of input I received.

A example is the new arcade FF game,while it received alot of bad reviews from websites and magazines alot of my friends love it,and I too enjoyed the demo alot,plus there is a thread where alot of forum members are expressing their opinions on the bad press it got,and they all are saying they thought the reviewers never really gave the game a fair shake.

This is a great example of reviewers trying to steer the public away from a awesome game.

I'm going to be blunt and sat that this might be the silliest thing I've ever read.

---

DownWriteFierce - 31 reviews in 31 days during May!

 Claymore 61 wrote:

I use mags and their websites for screenshots and video only,for honest game reviews I turn to friends who have it on their playlists.

 Claymore 61 wrote:

I still read the reviews and check out screenshots,then I compare writers opinions to friends and base my purchase on the balance of input I received.

So, which is it?

---

This post is provided "as-is" and confers no rights.
Gamercide