Actually that was basically what the 10 point scale originally meant.

I wonder how that changed so much over the years then. Right now it seems like the rating system they use is:

under 7 = unplayable, 7-8 is bad but playable, 8-9 is okay and 9 or higher  is playable

honestly, reviews are meant to inform and guide people in their decision to purchase/not purchase a game. They should not be seen as ALL that matters with regard to purchasing a game, and I doubt anyone with an ounce of sense would have such a view.

Lots of sources inform my decision to buy a game, including reviews from gaming sites, though how much I take on board from a particular review depends on the review itself.

The problem with reviews is that the underlying measure is only implicit. There is no real way to make a really objective review because people have different expectations and different playstyles... So even if a game has a good or bad review... the real question is if that review is actually reflecting my own preferences.

I bought the "game of the year" editions of oblivion and borderlands because they had stellar reviews... but they were simply awful in my opinion because they had a real bad main story and were full of uninteresting side quests with no real meaning to the overall story. Some people like the "freedom" and "feeling of exploration", but it just felt like wasting my precious time with a game without clear focus and without something to tell/express.

Final Fantasy XIII was the best game of this generation for me. The characters were portrayed with all their strenghts and weaknesses, doubts and fears... The story wanted to make you think about the holocaust and the effects of propaganda. FF XIII was the one game, that did not felt like a movie... it felt more like a theatre play, that doesn't only want to entertain you but wants to make to actually think about some moral dilemmas. If you review it with a focus on the story, it was something groundbreaking....

If you seek "exploration" in FF 13 you may be disappointed, because that was never the main focus of FF. So what do the mixed reviews in the US/UK really mean. Is it a bad RPG, a bad JRPG, or just a bad game for most US/UK Gamers who really expect something like Bioware or Bethesda would do... or simply that the reviewer doesn't like this particular game.

I for myself found that sticking with the same developer teams is a good way. If you appreciate the philosophy of the team you will most likely have fun with other games of the same team. I have sticked to SquareEnix, Capcom, Konami, Level5, Naughty Dog and Insomniac and selected games from Namco/Bandai and Tecmo/Koei for years and have learnt to stay away from Activision, EA, Bioware and Bethesda, THQ and Rockstar except for selected games. That kept me safe from major disappointments except Dragon Age, Oblivion, Borderlands, Sacred 2 and Mass Effect 2, where I was "blinded" by reviews. That doesn't mean these were bad games, they just were far from what I personally expect from gaming.

I'll never buy, or not buy a game based on reviews

loved WKC, cant wait for the 2nd one

reviewers are being very harsh on the console rpgs these days

Metacritic is an important reference for me, just as what other gamers think about certain games. But none of those sources force my will at all.

I usually am quite open to trying new genres and games, but I didn't like the aesthetics nor the premise of games as Demons Souls or Western RPGs. After lots of reading and coriosity arouse from the praise of the media and certain gamers, I dediced to take my risk and check for myself what I was missing. Good thing I did.

But being a reference doesn't mean it determines what games I like and what games I just don't.

The biggest problems with reviews is the scores. Having people who hate a certain style of games doesnt help. The fact that these sites depend on game makers for their advertisments. How many of us really know who got "paid off" and who is being real? They also seem to not review games for what they are ment to be. As in a party game is not meant to be that big CG blockbuster story game. Thats why I tend to go with user reviews, or just ask on here. I want honest opinions from people I know actually put time into a game and played it for what it was.

@lordtheknight   i wasnt assuming that it was the majority of people, im talking about the people who actually play games, professional and users alike. I could care less about the majority because unlike me there not that into games so i dont take their thoughts on this to heart

i agree with your 2nd point, but if it pisses you off, dont read them.  If you want it to go away ignore it.

On the first point, it's about the assumption many make that review scores and sales are tied, and instead of blaming the reviewers when the connection isn't there, these people blame the buyers.

On the second point, I already stated it was something other than reviews that pisses me off. "it's the insisting that reviews sell games, and it's our fault if sales don't agree with reviews, that pisses me off" That is clearly not the reviews themselves, which I don't read, but it doesn't stop people basically blaming me (and basically all system owners) for not agreeing with them.

@chairman-mao  its still means that, its not the reviewers, its the damn whiny readers who cry about every little thing. Is it the reviewers fault for the ignorance of the audience??? YOu review a game to high, people complain, too low people complain. People were crying about GT5 getting a 8.5 thats a good score!

@Games4fun  i think user reviews are even less trust worthy. I dont know how many times ive seen a fanboy biased against a game give it low scores without even playing it. The good thing aobut that is that they are so biased that you can usually tell who's full of crap.