The review system is fine as long as you read the review for it's content and not simply the score. I don't really understand this constant whining about reviews on this site. If you don't like them, don't read them. Most people I talk to in person have no problem with reviews and use them as a guide. If you go by gaming sites, you'd think that the review system is total crap and nobody likes it, but in the real world most people have no problem with them.

We can fix the review system but you'd just break it again like you broke my heart.

I would listen to reviews more if they came out 3-6 months later.  But even then, I don't even think that's adequate time for these people to play every game.  Most people, even 'gamers', can't play all the games they have in 3-6 months.  And they only have a set number of games numbering under 20.  These people are expected to review 10-20 games a MONTH, and sometimes more.  Yeah..I totally trust the opinion of someone who stretched their playtime to less than 10 hours each between Mass Effect 2, Bayonetta and Darksiders and then gave each a 'score'.

A movie costs some $6. A game costs ten times that.

The rating scale is the same for both. It's just that a game has to be a hell of a lot better to warrant a purchase.

But..the rating system isn't the same for both.  That's the point.  The majority of movie rating systems are X out of 4 or X out of 5 stars.  A gaming rating system is some convoluted system out of 10 and can range anywhere from a point system down to a tenth or as broad as 1 out of 10.  With all scores then being averaged in between.

In short, gaming reviews are either too meticulous or too broad.  And no site seems to actually have an 'overall' score that corresponds to the criteria that they present (such as presentation, gameplay, sound, etc).  In other words, the 'overall' score is based entirely on how the reviewer 'felt' while playing the game.  At least with movie critics, you know their bias and everything is based on an opinion.  Video Game reviewers hide beihnd a veil of 'facts' and 'technology' and then give you a score at the end entirely based on their opinion.

I agree, but nothing we can do about it.

Excellent points. Another thing to bring up is that movie reviewers are so entrenched that studios can't do anything to ruffle their feathers after receiving a bad review. Plus, readers don't expect EVERY movie reviewer to love their favorite movie... some bias is accepted within movie critics and their scores show it. Look at even the best movies every year... at least a few reviewers give it a 70 or lower. No one seems to care. On the other hand, Edge gives FFXIII a 60 or whatever and half of this forum blows up for days over it. Nevermind that Edge detailed their complaints about the game, they must BE WRONG BECAUSE I LOVED THAT GAME AND I'M THE SMARTEST PERSON IN THE WORLD. Everyone should agree with me.

Aw shit, I don't know why I'm typing this... I already bitched about this extensively in an editorial two years ago after GTA IV blew up review records.

I think the big problem is that game critics buy into hype WAY MORE than film critics. But film critics aren't perfect either. They have their own snobbish elitist arthouse bias. Movies that are intended to be low-brow but do a great job of being what it's intended to be (a fun low-brow movie) are often given shitty ratings (ie. 1-2 stars) because the reviewer itself has a bias in favor of the artsy high-brow stuff. A big reason for this I think has to do with the immaturity and low emotional intelligence of the average 'hardcore gamer' compared to the average movie buff IMO. Whenever a game reviewer gives a 'controversial' score for a game, you see fanboys rage on internet forums, call the reviewer all sorts of nasty things, pester the reviewer with hate mail, etc. It's no wonder society perceives hardcore gamers to be losers. Movie review readers tend to conduct themselves with a lot more maturity and class than hardcore gamers. These kind of hate-on backlashes probably have a lot to do with reviewers giving out inflated scores.

At the end of the day, it's all about opinion. There is no point in reviewers pretending to be objective because they're not supposed to be objective. This is why I don't rip into reviewers (like many fanboys do) when a reviewer gives a game I like a low score. For eg. If a reviewer wants to downgrade an Ace Attorney game because it "doesn't have a lot of real gameplay" (I've seen this used a lot when reviewing visual novels), fine. I strongly disagree with this view but I respect their opinion and the diversity of opinions you see among the many different reviewers listed on metacritic. A game like Ace Attorney isn't for everyone. And I think gamers have a right to know that when they read reviews. If I wrote a fanboy-esque review of the game, giving it a 10/10 and not pointing out things about the game that many people may find annoying (ie. the mainstream gamer), who am I helping? I'm just preaching to the choir (like-minded Ace Attorney fanboys like me). I'm not doing anything of positive benefit to gamers this way except make a lot of like-minded fanboys feel bigger in the pants.

I would like to see the scale be more like the ones film critics use (where 50%, 2/4, 2.5/5 is average) to prevent out of control score inflation. But hey, it's not a big deal. What I'm more concerned about is this whole idea people promote that reviews need to "objective". That is bullshit. Yes, you shouldn't write outright factual lies in the article (ie. saying that the game doesn't have so-and-so feature when really it does) but there's going to be a lot of subjectivity involved in giving a review. That's the reality. I may feel that a particular game is a great game but my reasons for thinking it's a great game may very well be reasons for disliking the game to another person.

Tell that to the Avatards!

In any case the problems with reviews for games also stem out of the fact that people rely on them so much because people just love to rock in their game shop first day a game is out and buy a $60 game straight up. That means that publishers like Sony, Microsoft, EA, Eidos, Activision etc want to control this process because hype, advertising, and reviewer pressure gets them their payola first day or week of release. Noone really cares what a movie reviewer says because they people rely on other information as well.

I have yet to meet a movie buff who is also an Avatard. They fall far closer to the hardcore gamer demographic than any movie aficionado I've ever seen.