I uses reviews if I'm 50/50 on getting it.
If reviews are good I'll buy it. If there so-so I'll rent it. If their bad I'll avoid it.

Have you guys checked out CNET.com's rating system, I like it far better than what most of these game reviewers use. It's a 10 pt scale, and 5 is exactly average, which allows a more thorough judging of what "good" is, instead of just 7.5-10 being good, the scale is 6-10 is good to great. If you have an HDTV, read their review of it(or anthing else for that matter) and what I mean is more clear.

I agree that the rating system is out of wack. I used to look at reviews getting 8.9 and above, which falls in the good-excellent range. Anything below would be considered average game or worse which aren't worth it.
Nowaday, I based my views on forums and what others has to say about the game.

What I noticed is that, games that I truly enjoy are usually in the 6.5 - 7.5 range where the game is apparently considered too hard and/or a very steep learning curve.

IMO, it's better to judge the game based on what people has to say, including the review articles. Keep in mind what was mentioned that you consider a plus, such as certain game mechanics you enjoy.

An example that is most recent would be Hoshigami DS. Scores for the game isn't good, but the game is enjoyable to me. I definitely wouldn't recommend to anyone not familiar with tactics style gameplay. The combat system is different than FFT but it looks so much similar. Gameplay is slow due to the way the combat system works but definitely unique. There's also permanent death. Ouch. The game scored 40-70% (gamerankings). Ouch.

WOW to everyone i learned alot...but the easiest solution with me is that i am going to look at multiple sources and base my decision on who gave the highest positive review of the game...not score i read my reivews to see whats wrong with the game..i dont never base my decision on the score its not to be trusted....i cant even excuse Famitsu....there rating system is horrible...u dont even know what a good score is...thanks everyone!!

I agree with you there.

• Under 60% - For fans only
• 70-80% - Good game
• 80-90% - Great game
• 90-100% - All time great, must have.

I use reviews all the time, although I generally have to have a good feeling about a game before I buy.  I like to see videos of gameplay as well.

No matter what people say about Metacritic, I use this all the time for a broad feeling about a game.  Sometimes you can get as many as 50 professional reviews of a certain game and there are generally at least 3 or 4 links to actual online reviews from this site as well...so you can see why they scored it a particular way. 

You have to look different at those ratings indeed. It's not because it had a 7 or a even a 6 it is a bad game. You have to first look into the game, I don't like shooting games for instance, they are too simple and mostly sell because they have a expensive engine that shows some graphics. So even if it gets a 9 i would probably not even try it, M-maybe if it gets a 9.5 i would consider it.

On the other hand i like point-and-click strategy games, you have another code. It got 7 or 8, and indeed the game is not memorable but it was nice and fun to play. Aka worth the money.

This showing that rating don't make games good or bad, but people do. If you don't like the genre you probably won't like the game neither. Thats why i hate the hype thing, games that are meant to be just good are thrown around as ammo for a 'this thing rocks' wether the thing is an engine or console. Leaving people with too high anticipations and thus resulting in an unhappy consumer. This has happend especially in the PS3 branding, games like resistance or lair end up (or will end up) as something considered a bad game. Not that they are bad, people just expected too much of it.

So rating tend to follow the hype, yet hardly live up to it. For example "majora's mask" was sometimes better rated then "ocarina of time", but we both know what game made it to the best titles ever. Yet in the early times reviews were made to distinct immoral bad games from playable games. Just because the hardware and experience could not follow the idea.
Currently it is impossible to make such an immoral bad game. Everyone with basic knowledge can make a game with flash that has recognizable graphics, some controls and nice music. Ten years ago you could buy games that made your ears deaf, you could not control or see the difference between an enemy or a door.
Thats why scores are still Music/Graphics/Gameplay/Controls based. yet it's clear that games should be rated as Innovative/Gameplay/Genre specific, so that people that buy a game know what to expect: a game that tries something new or a game that offers a nice old experience.

Like rayman: raving rabbits is a game that tries to innovate trough controls/has mediocre gameplay/wants to be creative minigame collection. And that tells a whole lot more then boring sound/mediocre graphics/funny bunny minigames and nice Wii controls.

Well, maybe at some point, ppl should stop watching the grades and start reading the actual reviews.
That's were you see the objective part evaluation (about visuel, sound, FPS, options, etc.).
That's were you see the subjective part evaluation (design, story, subject, feeling, fun, humour).

That's how you can use a review to guide.

Not with a freaking stupid grade system that allow you to compare Sim City with God of War or Mario with Forza 2, and often do not even reflect what is told by the reviewer.

 There you go....60-70% is average, not particularly good, but okay.