for me, i buy the games that i want to buy unless the reviews are beyond horrible. that being said, i can be swayed by reviews to buy certain games. thats how i first got into resident evil 4 and gears of war 1. prior to them being released, i had zero interest in them. to be honest, i hoped gears of war would suck ass because at the time, i was strictly a nintendo fan, but when i heard it was awesome, i got it and a 360 as well. now it's my most played game even 3 years later. re4 was the same way. had it not been for the amazing reviews, i wouldn't have even considered it. i never liked the re franchise until that game, but i'm glad i saw the reviews for it. my favorite game from last generation

Actually I said that sales show how much a game appeals to the market, and that low sales show that games have low appeal and that very high sales indicates that the market finds a game to be more appealing, and I did say that I'm not interested in the reviews of the "official media", but user reviews are actually important, as word of mouth can impact sales, if people hear from others that a game is bad, then the appeal will die out, and the sales will drop off.  The game has sold well, but has yet to break 10 million, or even get close to the likes of a game like Mario Kart Wii, and bad word of mouth is one thing that could easily cause its sales to drop off in the coming weeks.

also user reviews aren't fake data, I can show you the low metacritic user reviews of the game to prove my point.

That definitely crosses the line. Now, all Activision has to do is press them "What about that free trip" and they will bend. Bad move.

@ Kasz - ads make up about 30-40 percent of the newspaper income, but Activision - and most video game companies - don't advertise with newspapers anyhow. A mag, yeah. A newspaper? No. However, the print version is what's king. To get into print - with over a million daily readers in print - and even more online - for just a $60? You can't buy that kind of advertising for that cheap.

I am going to be real and honest in my review of games. I can say that no company can say I laid ethics aside just to get a game early or the like. I'll just be content getting the game the day of release and playing it and posting my review then. If it's crap, it's crap. I am not going to hold my tongue in fear of never getting another game from folks. That's why Sony isn't sending me games. I am calling it like I see it. Even Valve sent me a review copy of L4D2, a game I had blasted for having *racist undertones,* which I admitted was wrong in my review of the game.

A professional is going to stick to the ethics standards come hell or high water. We are supposed to offer an honest view of products. The day we don't do that, we are just an extension of a game publisher/devs ad and marketing department.

Whether I'm reading Metacritic reviews or user reviews, I have to weed through the trolls either way, but I find it easier to weed through the trolls with users. They're not paid, and they're usually upfront about their bias. They'll tell you if it's their favorite system, favorite controls, favorite genre, or favorite franchise, so you know where they stand, and see how the game fits into their tastes (if it does). And it's usually pretty obvious if they have an agenda.

With paid reviewers, they're an arm of the marketing branch of the publishers, and it is a well known fact that they get paid and bribed to give good early reviews so that the Metacritic number is really really high on launch day, before all the real honest reviews come in and knock it down a few pegs. So with those guys, the only ones I actually trust are VGChartz, for 2 reasons: the explanation loadedstatement gave above, and because I've met a couple of them in real life, and discussed video games with them in person, and trust them.

Outside of VGC and actual gamers (mostly members here, or friends of mine in meatspace), I would trust a reviewer like I'd trust an orc.

As a reviewer myself, this is how I see it:

You write as a gamer and for gamers. That's why one has to place one's self in the shoes of a purchasing gamer. What would I want if I paid full price for this? What information does the average need from my review to know whether they want this game as well? Other than that, a reviewer basically has nothing to really deal with.

The major issue many people have unfortunately, is that they blindly follow that tiny thing, whether it is a 87 or a 90. Many sites usually give numbers merely because it's what everyone wants, a rating of some sort. I could write the best possible essay on why this or that game deserves all the sales it gets, but if I give it 86 for example, people will focus solely on that number, without actually looking at what I write and focussing on that instead.

So it's basically a exchange. Reviewers need to realize they write to inform, not to hype with no reason. Readers need to realize that a number often merely accompanies the information and that they need to look for the good reviewers out there, because not every reviewer is worth reading.

I'm talkin about something real different here though.

Say your the main editor of IGN.  Advertising makes the majority of your money right?  Who does pretty much all your advertising?  Videogame companies.  So where's most of your money coming from?  The big publishers.  If EA decides to stop advertising on your site, or even just scale back a lot... it hurts your financial viability etc.

So when hiring people you are going to be very cognisant of that fact...

@ Kasz: it doesn't always have to be that way.

Our site has its own department that settles the advertising with the strict rule that no matter who advertises, the editor-crew is entirely free to judge a game the way it wants, whether that be good or bad. In the end, if gamers keep flocking to the reviews, publishers have no other option than to advertize, seeing how it's the easiest way to reach their audience... Gamers.

Sites that differ from this strategy, are sites that are probably too afraid to lose exclusive deals / money. If that's the case, good riddance with those sites imho

I feel reviews are way too subjective. but people say it should be this way. then how trustworthy are reviews/reviewers? well, just as trustworthy as any other gamer out there with 10+ years of gaming in their backpack. reviewers are shit and reviewers continue to show their lack of professionalism .

You are correct, Kasz and I see where you are coming from. For newspapers, it's like that with huge advertisers. This one company in New Mexico was using illegal labor and the newspaper changed the story around to show the company, a huge advertiser, in a good light. That is just wrong.

Here's the thing - IGN and Game Informer are two huge mags and have blasted games in the past. Still, even if they do, the game is on their site and still gets many more views than on most sites.