that is the wrong way to go IMO.

Of one review is junk, why should 5 reviews be better? Never trust reviews. There are sooo many ways to get all the information you need for one game. Read interviews, watch gameplay movies, play demos, ask someone who plays the game on your friendslist etc etc. Reviews are not needed.

I only care about reviews when they give really good scores to unknown games and put them on my radar. After that I will just do the things I just mentioned. No way a reviewer will stop me from buying a game.

Woop de fucking do , I've said it a thousand times gaming journalism is a joke , reviewers just review a game based on how much funds they get from adverts, every site does this, why do you think japanese games get low scores? is it because they're downright bad? , nope , the lower budget japanese studios just can't afford to money hat western journalist so they go for the ones in their homeland (Famitsu?.. yeah that magazine is a joke)

this video explains it all perfectly , but even with all this obvious shit, people still worship reviewer's opinion and force their dicks up their throat like a ritual. (yes I know I am disgusting, but thats the truth)

so the controversy doesn't spread outside and gaming journalism doesn't die, now that he is telling everyone about the truth , CBS and the rest of these crappy sites are going to be hit hard.

Metacritic may not be as objective as one thinks in that they still handpick their reviews. Numercial scores for videogames are becoming quite problematic.

Panama said:

Persistantthug said:

This is why I go with METACRITIC.

Because even if said reviewer lies (Gamespot), once you get 50 - 100 different reviews, once they're averaged up, the liars are basically made trivial.

METACRITIC is awesome for cases like this. :)

Metacritic may not be as objective as one thinks in that they still handpick their reviews. Numercial scores for videogames are becoming quite problematic.

Then I offer you this challenge....Find me 90'ish scored XBOX 360 or PS3 retail disk based game that doesn't deserve to be rated in the 90's.

(90's = GREATNESS)Find me this game please.

http://www.metacritic.com/games

[game must have a minimum of 50 "pro" reviews ]

[please keep your selected games no earlier than 2008 releases...thanks]

I'm so nervous about this Giantbomb move, the Whiskey Media family was pretty much the best thing on the internet.

Ah well, here's to hoping. Or at least hoping that Gerstmann and crew still have the brains to move on when they see the shit hitting the fan.

This right here is the final resultof the review system:

Developers paying reviewers and reviewers paying VGChartz most influential users.

Next Rol will pay us low-end users to like his posts. Great post btw!

DirtyP2002 said:

Persistantthug said:

This is why I go with METACRITIC.

Because even if said reviewer lies (Gamespot), once you get 50 - 100 different reviews, once they're averaged up, the liars are basically made trivial.

METACRITIC is awesome for cases like this. :)

that is the wrong way to go IMO.

Of one review is junk, why should 5 reviews be better? Never trust reviews. There are sooo many ways to get all the information you need for one game. Read interviews, watch gameplay movies, play demos, ask someone who plays the game on your friendslist etc etc. Reviews are not needed.

I only care about reviews when they give really good scores to unknown games and put them on my radar. After that I will just do the things I just mentioned. No way a reviewer will stop me from buying a game.

You're suggesting that 50 - 100 reviewers are easily bribed.

The logistics of doing that is not only nearly impossible.....but it sounds pretty ridiculous to boot.

3 or 4 or 5...sure.

but 100?

Sorry..but no

Really shows how the big boys can push around the smaller ones. In theory, game reviewers should be the ones who could say no. Afterall, reviews have a lot to do with how well a title does (in many cases, not all)