Originally posted by Burntvet

I prefer an opinion that is not subsidized by a paid advertiser.

 

How do you sort those out?

/don tinfoil hat

I really don't trust either of them. I can at times listen to positive/negative reviews, but it depends on the poster as well as the review. On some specific mmo boards here for example I have seen people going into every single topic, as well as creating 2-5 over the course of the week on why the game will fail, why its garbage etc. Usually these amount to "WRACK WoW clone WoW clone WRRRRRRRRRACK!(parrot whistle) at times with no proof, such as Elder Scrolls Online. Or people going, Themepark = failed, if this were a sandbox it would have goten 458453630454356568304568346803458063480568342 subscribers at minimum, and vice versa of sandbox = fail.

A big deal braker for negative reviews is the title. If they use words like "fail" "WoW clone" "garbage" and other petty terms, I don't even give the review a chance. Titles like, "Why X didn't deliver" or other non petty titles I will read through. If they make a good argument, I might pass the game up, which I have done in the past.

People's reviews that are talking about "This is going to destroy WoW." and other similar titles, I also pass up. Again, titles like that make me not take their review seriously and makes me think their review has little to no value. I am generally more willing to read positive reviews like "great game with interesting new mechanics" and such, because I assume they will probably describe these said mechanics, or other similar titles.

Overall, I try to find more tame reviews on both sides before picking up a game, or mmo. Even though in general, besides EverQuest, I rarely if ever play any MMO longer than 2 months lol.

Didn't vote because I'd choose neither.  Haters and fanboys are different sides of the same coin. 

What I would credit the most is appreciation of a games features by haters and criticism by a fanboy.

Originally posted by WhiteLantern

Originally posted by Burntvet

I prefer an opinion that is not subsidized by a paid advertiser.

 

How do you sort those out?

 

/don tinfoil hat

Start by ignoring just about every review on this and any other site with MMO advertisers. Especially in regards to SWTOR and GW2.

I think Bill's reviews are the most fair but a bit shallow due to him having a full time job outside of this one. 

There are cetain things to look out for:

1) Poster's join date.  If the join date is around the same time as the prerelease hype of the game occurs, I find their posts suspicious.  There have been numerous users who sort of pop up about this time, releasing tons and tons of posts about these supposed games, always listing the features, etc.  Anyone like this I take with a grain of salt as I suspect they may be some sort of social marketer.

2) Poster's track record.  There are some who get swept up in the hype for every game.  These few either seem to never learn or just get kicks out of the hype.

3) Overly negative/positive rhetoric in the post.  Either extreme is a warning sign.

I tend to give most games the benefit of the doubt but most posters tend to follow #3.  This rings of some emotional investment they have in the game, whether good or bad....getting a clear picture of the game from these people is hard or impossible to do.

Didn't vote.

To me, it's less about an individual review than it is an examination of reviews in general.  I look for a stack of positive, a stack of negative, and then look for similar phrases/comments/trends/etc.  Then I'll base my decision off that compared to how important the trend item is to me.

For instance, if a game gets a lot of negative reviews for its solo play but the multiplayer is consistently pointed out as an exception, I still won't be interested as multiplayer means nothing to me (speaking of console style games), whereas if those cases were reversed I might very well purchase the game even if the multiplayer is abysmal.

Don't know why people aren't voting, its entirely theoredical. We obviously know we would want a fair and balanced review over a hater or fanboy. This thread would be stupid if it was just that, and I highly doubt people to be that unintelegent towards that end. 

Vote based off this simple assumption:

"If for some reason there was only 1 review by a hater, and 1 review by a fanboy, which review would you be more likely to believe? Which side do you believe would give the best representation of the game, even if it was so biased in one direction or the other?"

Instead of reviews, I stick to doing the following :

1.  Go to Twitch.tv/Ownd3d

2. Search for the game Im thinking of buying

3. Watch people play it

I think it is too simplified as you put it.

I believe you have 2 categories of posts in both, positive and negative reviews:

Positive:

a) There are people who make a positive review which may accurately describe the game just from a positive perspective. Giving specific examples of which they believe makes the game good.

b) Then you have blind fanboys who claim that the game is second coming.

Negative:

a) People who apply constructive criticism in their reviews.

b) People who just flame the game. "This game sucks" group basically.

For me, it does not matter whether the review is positive or negative. It just has to be category a), not b).

I did not vote in the poll.

A critical review is always more reliable than a optomistic one.

It's simple logic, if a critical review can only critique a few things or nothing at all, then it must be a pretty damn good game/product. If there is a lot wrong with it, then it stands to reason it's garbage.

But if a optomistic review can find few things or nothing at all to praise, then it's a pretty sub-par/garbage game/product. And if it praises it throughly, it can still be a marketing ploy, or a fanboy, or someone who has biased intentions.

To sum that up, it's harder to point out flaws biasedly, (You have to make actual points/comaprisons, or they don't matter.) than it is to praise a game falsely. (Requires no logic or knowledge to do.)

All I can do when I see people talk about how they wish reviews were more objective is /facepalm. A review is inherently subjective and the only objective parts you can bring to it are does it have or not have this or that feature. Everything else is going to be subjective. It is impossible to bring objectivety to an opinion piece like a review because everyones opinions on things are different. There is no scientific method for game review so just read as many reviews as you like and in the end if you're gonna decide whether or not you like a game you will ultimately have to play it yourself to find out. Until the point where you have the time and money to do that just read as many reviews as you can to get a feel of whether or you want to buy a certain game or not. Or like the above said find a reviewer you like.

As far as the OP I tend to believe the negative review first because lately most games I do put my hands on are crap. Well online games anyway, but that's my subjective opinion I can't give you an objective one that would be impossible.

  I actually lean toward being a more positive person, in general.  That said, I'd still rather hear from the hater than the fanboy.  The super fans are, in most cases, going to simply regurgitate information we already have.  Odds are high that a publisher is already going to be shoving the postive aspects of the game in our faces in their release information and videos.  Its what they are most proud of, after all.  The hater is going to say something that we HAVEN'T heard already.  Bugs, glitches, hacks, server stability, overall player attitude...and these things are important.  Now, I won't say that I'd read those reviews as gospel truth.  They aren't, they are deliberately skewed reports based on either a poster who just enjoys flaming or a consumer that is angry.  Neither case is a person dedicated to thoughtful or reasoned consideration of the product.  BUT, taken as a grain of salt, they can provide a limited insight into something you would, otherwise, never hear about.

  Just be certain to read each flame as though it was nothing remotely as bad as they make out to be. 

These terms are wrong.

You dont use terms or design games or policies or whatever based on companies, developers or publishers point of view.

Whoever you are, this is a very big evidence that you are not one of us.

Beware of this "MMOExposed" person.

What really matters is not whether the message is positive or negative.

To cause effects the only thing that matters is whether or not the target identified himself right away with the agent.

That is why some gamers are so influent and popular in making or destroying products.

If you cant engineer a point of view that identifies with the target audience, doesnt matter whatever you say.

There is nothing to believe about reviews.   They are not made to be factual or an accurate assessment by any means.   They are nothing more than a form of entertainment. 

How many people would actually look at a review if was nothing but gameplay and a list of features?