is it me or over the last year or so game reviewers have lost a serious amount of credibility among hardcore gamers and interent geeks (i meant that in the nicest way). i mean i remeber 5 or so years ago i used to rely on reivews before i a bought a game, i used to check gamespot and so on to see what they were saying about the quality of the game. i would never have bought games like FFX, OoT without a reivew on the launch day.

Now however, it seems that i couldn't care less about what reviewers say about a game to a certain extent. i mean when they gave metroid 3 an 8.5 over at gamepot i was disgusted as its a great game, or the recent gta4 reviews. i mean its a great game, but its not a 10, a 10 is a generation defining game, and its not that. and now the recent gamerankings stupidity with OoT constantly moving places.

When a game that i think is excellent gets good reviews it makes me happy, but when it gets bad reviews i'm convinced that the reviewers knows less then an 80 year old man who doesn't even know the name playstation or nintendo. but it no longer shifts my opinion on whether to buy a game or not

will reviewers ever get their credibility back, or is an overhaul of the reviewing system necessary? (someone on vgcharts wastalking about this a couple weeks ago, i think it was rocketpig, can't really remember)

I love game reviews, overall. I have several places I trust more than others, but even those I sometimes disagree with (EGM giving Assassin's Creed low scores, for just one example). It's like any review system. There are movies that get really low scores that I like all the time. Dead or Alive, for example, I thought was one of the best fighting game to movie transitions ever...or really, one of the best movies about a videogame. I mean, it wasn't Oscar quality, but it had action, humor, and sexy girls.

The review system is fine. Just don't argue about which game is the best ever based on review scores. That's pointless, as we can see =)

how can you be pissed at MP3 getting 8.5? You said it's a great game, and 8-8.5 is a score for very good/great games.

Look at it's average score on gamerankings. It's obviously AAA if every other large site gave it low 90s to 100s.

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages4/928517.asp The game deserved alot more than a 8.5. 

I'd give it lower than that.  I don't see how a person's opinion should be "obvious," anyway.

 Well how do you know the review wasn't bias? I think you should know by now gamespot isn't credible. 

I rely more on what the game is about and if i like the style.

And if you look at their review here are their cons.
The Bad

* Some of the contextual actions don't control all that well (YOur rarely use those)
* Streamlined controls make things a little too easy and a little less adventurous ( Play veteran, I don't see how it's less adventurous because it's easy.)
* Doesn't do much different than the previous two Metroid Prime games.(neither does halo3 and that got a 9.5.)

They were just looking for cons in the game to justify their score, but they aren't large enough for anybody else to care.

I use game reviews for my game purchasing decisions. Most of the time, it works out for me. However, Mass Effect wasn't particulary fun to play. I use game reviews because I am on a tight budget since I am still in High School

Halo 3 has replays and forge.

 But whatever.  I'm not saying gamespot is a source I trust, but MP3 wasn't that great, imo, either.