Word of mouth recommendations are far more likely to result in a game selling well than a solid review score, and positive first hand experiences with games matter far more than word of mouth does. This is one of the reasons why so many “awful” (according to reviewers) Wii games sold so well.

Sometimes it is.

Top Selling Games of 2010 (And their respective MetaCritic scores):

1. New Super Mario Bros. Wii (Wii - 87)
2. Pokemon HeartGold/SoulSilver (DS - 87)
3. Wii Fit Plus (Wii - 80)
4. Wii Sports Resort (Wii - 80)
5. Super Mario Galaxy 2 (Wii - 97)
6. Just Dance (Wii - 49)
7. God of War III (PS3 - 92)
8. Red Dead Redemption (360 - 95)
9. Final Fantasy XIII (PS3 - 83)
10. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (360 - 88)
11. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (360 - 94)
12. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (PS3 - 94)
13. Red Dead Redemption (PS3 - 95)
14. Mass Effect 2 (360 - 96)
15. Mario Kart Wii (Wii - 82)
16. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (PS3 - 88)
17. Final Fantasy XIII (360 - 82)
18. Heavy Rain (PS3 - 87)
19. Dragon Quest VI (DS - NA)
20. Bioshock 2 (360 - 88)

Games in the 90's: 7
Games in the 80's: 11
Games in the 70's and below: 1

Well only if you have unlimited time to game or only own one system.  Every seven I rented was great for the rentel price and not worth a penny more. When would it be worth it to you then?

It depends on if the game is unique and there's nothing else like it.

I'm just laughing thinking of the last 7 I rented, Lost Planet 2. The gameplay was sort of fun, but the system was compleatly brocken in terms of upgrading abilities and the gameplay was laughable compared to other 3rd person shooters. In all, the game was brocken and if I had spent $60 on it, I would be soured towards buying games again.

Still doesn't mean there are not a few good times with them.

I'll buy a seven new. Hell I have bought games lower than that and still loved the shit out of them. I loved Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: The Crystal Bearers. I have spent way more time playing it than I ever have, or will spend playing Super Mario Galaxy. Review scores are crap because they do not account for an individuals taste. This is a problem with reviews in general. If someone thinks so little of themselves that they feel the need to relinquish their own personal thoughts to another person then I just feel sorry for them quite frankly/

I guess the more a game caters to those people who post on message boards and such the more important the reviews are. For games like Dead Space, Red Dead Redemption, etc. review scores are very important.

On the other hand, as soon as a game caters to the mainstream ("casual") customer reviews don't matter anymore because these reviews don't even try to gain the interest of the mainstream customers. And the customers don't care about the reviews because the reviewers don't understand why people like certain games. Take Wii Party for instance. I bet people will love the game but reviewers will rate it a 6 or a 7 because "it depends on luck" or "the graphics suck" or "there are only 50 minigames and the motion controls don't feel very precise".

So basically reviews matter as long as the game in question is a game for people who like the same games the reviewers do. Of course, if someone made a magazine for the people who like the more mainstream games these reviews would matter for the mainstream games but currently such a magazine doesn't really exist

Review scores can be misleading, but that shouldn't discredit all game reviewers. For example, there are some really off based and biased reviewers, but just try to find a reviewer that you agree with. I wouldn't use Metacritic for a reference because there are some unfair reviewers out there.

I use Game Informer, I think their reviewers and I look for the same things in games, so when I look for a game I usually use them as a reference, it's really up to you.

This may come across as a "well duh" to many of you, but if you do understand this then why do you complain?

Except to Wii fans, everyone works against Nintendo remember!