Lately Gamespot is closest to my own oppinions. I also like Eurogamer, IGN (not so much anymore) and Gametrailers.

Interesting. For the amount of vitriol leveled at these reviewers in various threads, when people are asked about it here it seems to be less. Or maybe the people that get angry about reviewers aren't posting here?

I think that's probably due to your initial question being 'which reviewers DO you trust', not which reviewers DON'T you trust.  I could have a nice long rant about a reviewer I DON'T trust. But I did that yesterday, so I won't  ;)

All of them ^

Dangerous? Fanboy ramblings? Professional ethics? Are you sure your perceptions are right? They sound...weird.

If you want to see an example of an industry where reviewers have no significance and the most popular products are due to word of mouth and user feedback, just look at the music industry. It's collapsing. You're making videogame reviewers sound like the Legion of Doom. Both sides need to improve (those who review games and those who read them). Reviewers can be biased a lot of the times, but this has been overblown heavily by the perception of gamers. That's pretty much the biggest problem with the reviewing system this generation. Videogame reviewers don't need to go. They just need someone in their ranks that's a god at what they do (like Roger Ebert is for movies).

jeuxvideo.com

I like playing games for myself. Short of that, Edge and Eurogamer are mosty well-written and fairly harsh. Some VGC reviews are good as well. User reviews on metacritic are mostly worthless.

The biggest problem facing reviewers and review consumers is that everyone seems to want tangible, immediately digestible information. The way entire games are condensed into a single number and a couple bullet points these days shows this pretty clearly. Even finding reviews that go beyond the obvious story, graphics, gameplay or sound talking points into something more substantial and meaningful (such as insightful genre or industry commentary) is rare.