This, combined with their debacle over GTA IV scores (you do not give something a 10 when there are so many objective flaws even if minor ones, no matter how awesome you otherwise think it is), is why I say these people have no credibility.

I read revies to get an idea of what the general gameplay is,but if I want a game I'm going to get it regardless of what the reviews say.

What really annoys me about game reviews is that the reviewers are completely out of touch with 99% of the gaming population. When gamers love a game and reviewers say "It's casual lol!" they don't do their job. The job of a reviewer is to tell people how good a game is. And they don't. They only do it for the handful of core gamers who visit gaming forums and participate in that ridiculous "hype game". And to be honest they'd buy their games anyways, no matter what the reviews say.

So basically reviewers don't do their job, which means they're useless. The only reason why reviewers get paid for their job is because they are part of the "hype game". Their job is to hype games up. If they don't people get mad and shout at them.

The best example I can think of here would be a magazine I've been reading for years and years. They just keep losing thousands of readers each year and they just get more and more "hardcore" (hardcore means that nobody is interest in the BS they write). But they just don't get it. They keep adding "Retro" sections to their magazine, do silly contests only nerds would participate in, are proud because they know when the first Mario game was released and so on. The most annoying one of them even created a "Casual gamer" magazine (!!!) but whenever he gets the chance he talks about "real" gamers and how silly "casual" gamers are and just keeps spitting his "analysis" to you, which is not only completely wrong but also boring because nobody wants to read it.

Reviewers should give you an idea what the game in question plays like, what it is all about and for who it is. They shouldn't rate each game at a score from 1-100 and tell you "this game is bad because you can't do X" because a lot of people just don't care if you can do X or not. Just Dance is the best example here. Reviewers went "Oh my god! Don't buy this! It's trash, you look like an idiot playing it!" Yes! You look like an idiot! That's exactly why people like this game!

Gaming journalism is silly anyways. All you need to do to be a gaming "journalist" is to open a website and write that X game has bad graphics so people shouldn't buy it. Woah, amazing...

I really like your take on this whole thing Uncle Scrooge. I think you are correct in the way reviews should be done.

I also don't like the way game magazine tend to focus on one sort of player. You know what? I can have a job and a family and still enjoy gaming. I just want to have fun, not be categorized as Hardcore or Casual, whatever meaning those terms have now a days.

But reading everything here, I am happy to see there is a lot of people just enjoying playing games, the games they like and cared enough about to pay money for.

I am still playing Indiana Jones and the Staff of Kings and I am still having a blast.

Another thing I just tought about.

The reviews for Cursed Mountain stated that the control scheme was deficient. That your motions were not properly read and that it lead to frustration. I have played the whole thing from beginning to end and LEARNED how to used the controls. Sure, at first they are tough to master but in the end, I got it right EVERY TIME.

This leads me to think that some reviewers give some game a very shallow look before giving their reviews. And in my mind, that's not fair.

I think that as well. I've seen too many reviews that describe parts of games incorrectly, even the positive reviews (so even those are likely decided beforehand).

Final Fantasy CC the Crystal Bearers was a fabulous - albeit short - game, why it deserved such low reviews I'll never understand...

Why would gameing sites write reviews according to people that dont even care about them, the guys that would find Just Dance fun dont go in those sites, and people who like GOW, gears or Halo do, so you would be better off reviewing for your audience.

Its the same as saying: "oh these music reviewers are out of touch with 99% of the population because they rate low things like Jonas Brothers, Miley Cyrus, etc..."

Im just saying, if Im the kind of guy that visits gamespot, and they give a game a 2.5, that means I would probably give it a similar score or wouldnt buy it.

Oh now that's cute You actually think people just don't visit gaming websites or don't read gaming mags because they're not interested. The reality is that people are running away because the quality of these websites and magazines just keeps decreasing. The same goes for newspapers by the way. Ever read a newspaper from the 1950's? That's a whole different category of quality.

Again, look at that magazine I mentioned, for instance. In the 1990's those guys sold more than 100k copies of their magazine each month. Now they sell less than 15k copies. So the potential customers are there, the gaming media just keeps screwing them (if you happen to like Just Dance and also happen to read IGN / Gamespot / whatever you probably felt quite screwed when you read their review... or their reviews in general: "lol you look like a jerk playing that!" "Lol that's for casuals!" "REAL gamers would never buy that!")

When the newspaper you read actually insults you by saying "you're not worth reading a newspaper!" you'll probably quit reading it, too.

Yes, the potential consumers are there. It's just that the gaming media is screwing them.

I know that's hard to understand for people who are so much into gaming and who like the games the gaming media also likes. But it's true. You really feel screwed once you happen to leave that "inner circle".

That definitely happens.  I think it is more the result of there being so many games and so little time rather than being anything malicious.  The end result of a bad review is the same either way though.