Who out there buys games based on game reviewers?

[vizunary]

rocketpig said:

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.

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.