If you want to decide between two similar games, in the same genre, with similar features, released on the same system, and that were released at a similar time review scores are very meaningful ...

At the same time reviewers are completely unable to adequately rate games that do not follow standard rules or approaches ...

Is a game like Halo a better game for you to buy than Brain Age because Halo has a better review score? Probably if you love First Person Shooters but if you dislike conventional games probably not.

mrstickball said: Bork, I just think that there weren't 20+ titles out there for the 360 that deserved higher scores, but that's just me. Again, with EDF it did get insanely low scores. And IMO, I would of rated DR and VP much higher. Kameo, The Outfit, and Condemned were also 3 early on games that got mediocre reviews (if you consider 82% good for Kameo and Condemned, be my guest). Again, I've just figured that 85% was good, but not great, whereas I found the games above great.

I think you are being a bit generous with your scoring there. I would consider a good game to be 70-80, a great game to be 80-90 and an all time great to be 90-100. I agree with you about EDF tho, I think alot of reviewers missed the point with that game. The versus mode was some of the most fun I have had on any recent games.

I don't mean it's you that's the problem (although I personally still consider 85 a great score). It's the whole online review system. I found out a couple weeks ago that the average score for a game on Gamespot is 7, and 8 on IGN. There's something seriously wrong there.

If you ask me, reviews should stick to a 5 star system, maybe with half-points, maybe not. Sort of like the higher-quality print magazines used to do. With a 5 star system, reviewers don't seem to be afraid to rate something 1 or 2 stars if it deserves it, whereas with these 100-point systems, anything below a 7.0 is considered abysmal. 5.0 should be an average score, not 8.0. The fact that a game has to score over 9.0 to be considered good makes the whole system a joke (which also brings up the issue of nitpicking differences in scores above 9.0--how a reviewer thinks he can measure precisely enough to say "GTA3 is 2% better than FFX, but 1% worse than Zelda" is beyond me. But that's a whole other topic).

Reviewers are such a risky thing to buy a game over. One of the biggest problems reviewers have is that they use the same scale for every game that they rate.

Take any of the Wii games like Brain Training or Wii Sports. It is completely insane to judge these games the way several of them have been. Often times I find that the real problem with a Wii game is that they didn't include a great instruction manual. Which is my biggest quarrel with Wii Sports. But none of the review sites played it long enough to realize that these problems they were having were because of that.

Lets look at Calling all Cars. Another great game that because it was judged on a terrible scale was largely passed over by the reviewers. Which also led to many hilariously angry posts on Jaffes blog. My biggest problem would be that there are only 3 maps. A good solution to this would have been to release a map maker to the audience. Then charged people to have access to the downloadable maps. Ultimately though the game should have been judged on its multiplayer component.

if im on the fence about a game i want then ill let a reviewer handle my decision for me.

In terms of Mobile Suit Gundam Crossfire, not only was it panned by everybody, but it's sales came almost entirely from it's launch month. So the game sold based on being there and not having word of mouth. I've never heard a single positive thing mentioned about it.

mrstickball said: Bork, I just think that there weren't 20+ titles out there for the 360 that deserved higher scores, but that's just me. Again, with EDF it did get insanely low scores. And IMO, I would of rated DR and VP much higher. Kameo, The Outfit, and Condemned were also 3 early on games that got mediocre reviews (if you consider 82% good for Kameo and Condemned, be my guest). Again, I've just figured that 85% was good, but not great, whereas I found the games above great.

I think you're using slightly skewed logic on game scores. Most of them equate to the A/B/C/D/F grade system. At 85%, Dead Rising would have been a B/B+ rating. Not phenominal, but when you're dealing with multiple reviewers with different taste in games, that's a pretty damned solid game. Same goes for Viva Pinata (I also own both games).

You might think these games deserve a little more credit (and I'd agree with you) but it's not as if they're getting lambasted by critics. It's obvious that the majority of people who reviewed the games enjoyed them. That's a good indication that the game will be pretty good.

Anyway, I heavily rely on reviews. I usually check at least three or four sources before really deciding if I'm going to buy a game (with exceptions such as Forza & Gears which I know I want anyway). It usually gives you a good basis over the quality of a game. If there's a doubt about the game (scores in the mid 70s or below), I'll rent it and judge for myself.

Borkachev said: If you ask me, reviews should stick to a 5 star system, maybe with half-points, maybe not. Sort of like the higher-quality print magazines used to do. With a 5 star system, reviewers don't seem to be afraid to rate something 1 or 2 stars if it deserves it, whereas with these 100-point systems, anything below a 7.0 is considered abysmal. 5.0 should be an average score, not 8.0. The fact that a game has to score over 9.0 to be considered good makes the whole system a joke (which also brings up the issue of nitpicking differences in scores above 9.0--how a reviewer thinks he can measure precisely enough to say "GTA3 is 2% better than FFX, but 1% worse than Zelda" is beyond me. But that's a whole other topic).

If you keep in mind that an "A" game is 90%+, a "B" game 80%-90%, a "C" game 70%-80%, etc., the review system used by most gaming magazines and sites make a whole lot more sense. That's what almost everybody seems to use.

Besides, I usually find it MUCH more insightful to actually read the review. The reasoning behind a reviewer knocking a game's score down for might not matter to you and vice versa.

I read reviews and it influences me only if I am on the fence about a game. Some games I will get no matter what because I liked the games before it, Zelda, Smash Bros etc.

Generally I don't care about 1 review like IGN or other sites. I try to get a concensus from Gamefaqs usually.

Of course if a demo is available I go for that.

Saiyar said: I've found the best way to approach reviews is to look at a few sites over a period of time. If there is one site of magazine you find that you agree with on a regular basis (eg I find I agree with Eurogamer alot) then stick with them as your main source. I wouldn't pay to much attention to scores either.

This is my approach as well, I actually look for certain reviewers, there are a couple at IGN and some over at Gamespot that have similar tastes as me. Often I'll actually read the bad reviews first and pick them apart to see what the issue actually is and go from there. If it's control probs, that's usually my biggest detractor.

Some games I'm like a few others here, no matter what is said about MGS, FF, GTA, Ratchet and Clank.