Ok what?? When someone brings them up??? Where would they bring them up if not the internet?? You might be much younger than me, but I have very few people to talk games with, because most of my friends are not game players, unless its COD. Minecraft is not a good example because that game got good reviews.

It is BS, all of it. Why would anyone think the game would get bad reviews, when its getting good ones abroad?? At least the taste in Europe is somewhat close to US. ANd its getting praise even over here, from people who have tried it. 

"When someone brings them up??? Where would they bring them up if not the internet??"

You really think that's the only place? And I was born in 1979, so I've seen people talk about this stuff well BEFORE there was the internet. And even then, the internet is broader than just message boards.

"Minecraft is not a good example because that game got good reviews."

1. When? 2. Even then, you're assuming the reviews caused the sales, not the gamers. The point is that the gamers make MC a hit, not the reviewers.

"Why would anyone think the game would get bad reviews, when its getting good ones abroad??"

Well even if it did or didn't, my point is still about not letting the reviews decide our opinion.

Im not talking about before im talking about now, where do you see people NOW, especially people at your age talk about games as much as they do online, and I was referring to the internet as a whole not really message boards

Minecraft?? WHen?? Really, man?! the game is sitting on a 94 on Metacritic. Thats a damn high number. And no im not assuming that reviews caused the game to be a hit. Or whatever you're trying to say. What did the game sell anyway, if sales made it a hit? Considering we have crappy numbers on PC games in general, what do you think it sold?

Reviews are not going to decide anyone's opinion on this game. Anyone who wants it, will buy it. 

"Im not talking about before im talking about now, where do you see people NOW, especially people at your age talk about games as much as they do online, and I was referring to the internet as a whole not really message boards"

Well you did specifically mention message board dwellers in another post. But even if the internet is the choice discussion place now, it still represents fans better than reviews do.

"the game is sitting on a 94 on Metacritic"

Again, when? When did those reviews come out? Launch? Beta? Alpha?

As for sales, the game sold well over a million (and I think almost four million) before even the official release.

The reviews are from the past four weeks, but I dont know what that has to do with anything. and where are you getting the sales from??

When some people other gaming sits discussed the game, they brought up how well it sold. So it sold before any reviews even happened.

And how, when I've been stating that reviews don't decide if a game is good, would that not have to do with my point? Since those reviews came well after gamers decided the game was good, the gamer did the deciding.

Link to sales??  So they were charging for a beta before the full game was out?? Im not asking to be an ass, im asking because that seems strange to me. Ive never heard of a game that was being sold while it was still in beta.

Are reviewers not gamers too?? All they did was agree with what people were generally saying about the game anyway. Dont see how the two are different, except the reviewers put numbers on it.

"So they were charging for a beta before the full game was out?? Im not asking to be an ass, im asking because that seems strange to me. Ive never heard of a game that was being sold while it was still in beta."

It was actually sold in alpha, and sold about a million before the beta went on sale.

"Are reviewers not gamers too??"

When some give 7 points just for being a major game, then their opinions are no longer trustworthy (those that don't still have my trust of course, even if I don't agree with their opinions).

And when the metacritic average is being treated as yet another fanboy talking point, then the reviews are no longer about whether a game is any good or not.

And when the head of Take Two declares metacritic to be the measure of the success of a game, and not how may gamers they have buying their games, then reviews are being treated as greater than the opinions of customers.

This isn't about Minecraft (which may or may not have been because it's a minor game turned major). This is about game reviews [i[in general.

Good for Minecraft, either it really is that good or there are a million stupid people out there.

How do you know they give 7 points for it being a major game? hell of an accusation with no proof.

Take two is crazy, nothing surprising, but that is still the opinion of ONE of many companies

Fanboys will be fanboys, you cant blame the system on the ignorance of some people. Thats almost like blaming McDonalds that you got fat.

I get that reviews are "iffy" lot of reviews in the past recent years make me say "WTF"? Crysis 2, NMHs, comes to mind. BUt IMHO they are better than the alternatives. Fan reviews are even less trustworthy and are really fanboy driven.  Amazon.com is ok, but even then, you barely get any info on the game, no one goes in depth. It is usually this game is good and thats that. No reason why. If that is good for you, then fine, but I use that as a last resort. Sales suck, too. There are too many factors going into if a game will sell to tell that if it is "Good". Ads, release date, console, competition, genre, etc. I dont want to wait months to see how a game is selling anyway to decide if I want to get it, whats the point? I never saw sales as an indicator for a good game, Sales tell me that a game is accesible to play. THe easier the game is to play the more potential it will have to sell. COD is ez as hell to play

"Good for Minecraft, either it really is that good or there are a million stupid people out there."

Those were long term sales, before virtually any marketing. So that has to sell by word of mouth. The game would not have sold if it wasn't enjoyable for a lot of people.

Buying a game solely on hype, that's stupid, and is what makes front loaded sales.

"How do you know they give 7 points for it being a major game? hell of an accusation with no proof."

Have you not heard about some sites withholding review copies for scores below 7, and one reviewer actually being fired for giving a game a 6 (Kany & Lynch 1)? It's also something covered a lot on the blog http://gamejournos.com/.

"Take two is crazy, nothing surprising, but that is still the opinion of ONE of many companies"

Well it comes back to the comment that instigated this. Someone made a post claiming that the celebration over this game might get cut short solely because some reviewers here might not give it good scores. That would ALSO be crazy.

"Fanboys will be fanboys, you cant blame the system on the ignorance of some people. Thats almost like blaming McDonalds that you got fat."

I'm not blaming the system. I was STATING the system, but also pointing out that us here should know better than to let it decide our opinions (if we didn't already).

"I never saw sales as an indicator for a good game"

I wasn't really stating that sales should decide everyone's opinions. I'm stating they are better at showing at least one aspect of quality than reviews.

"Sales tell me that a game is accesible to play. THe easier the game is to play the more potential it will have to sell. COD is ez as hell to play"

Not really. Access ability just avoids driving people away, but it can go too far. Being dumbed down is no better than poor accessibility. Other M is Metroid, but dumbed down, while most of the other Metroid games are accessible. Those games sold better.

But again, accessibility is just removing one barrier. If the content is weak, the audience gets bored. Take the decline of the Mega Man series, when the control was just as accessible across the games (for the most part), but you're fighting the same robots and levels half the time.