I know there was a thread recently about some one who hated game reviewers, and I was wondering how many of you rely on them, or how many of you hate them. I personaly read only nintendo power reviews, as they provide all I need.

I never thought I relied on them that much untill today, when reading the march issue over, and saw a review on WW2:Aces. I thought it looked like a worthy gaming purchase, and was planning on getting it, when I saw that Nintendo Power gave it a 3/10

I saw an ad just now saying that a game called "Mercury Meltdown Reveloution" got a 4/5 from gamespy, and a 8.5/10 from gamespot... Nintendo Power gave it a 6/10.

I'm not saying that Nintendo Power is the most unbiased game reviewers, these are just some examples of how Game reviews can help avoid bad games, or confuse the hell out of you with contriversal scores from differnt sources.

Your opinions? 

i trust the reviews on some level....but i dont let it influence my purchase that much...

I never trust just 1 review.

But I would be lying if 10 different sites giving a game 5/10 while another game got all 9/10 wouldn't influence my decision when going to the store.

I don't rely on reviews, but it's nice to know something about a game before you go and buy it.

Well I have a lot of games that I enjoyed a lot who got bad reviews...

When I was young I always read a magazine if it had a good score I bought the game..

Lucky the last 5 years I got smarter..

I usually just head to metacritic and read all the review summaries.
Then I would read the highest and lowest reviews to get a good grasp at the best case and worst case scenerios.

I enjoy games with 60 and 70 of score, score never is true, the true is your enjoy in it game.

I trust them for the technical stuff, like how many players can play in a multiplayer game, or if the frame rate sucks. As for how fun a game is, no one can tell you that.

I find a group of reviews (particularly the top and bottom reviews as it were) can be useful to see if there's a common thread, but I always then factor in my own preferences and views.

For less known IP they can help get an idea about the game - for example Folklore reviews gave me a good feel for the game, plus it was interesting to see how broad the spread of scores were, a sure sign of a game that aroused very different reactions depending upon the player.

I guess when something is truly up (for example the control issue in Lair) the fact that every review calls out a major failing lets you know that unless you have a solid reason to invest you should be vrey wary.

The least useful reviews are those for big titles like Halo 3 or Bioshock - you know most reviews are going to be gushing while a few go against the flow and slam the game. For big titles I rely more on previews and general 'feel' on the internet.

I'm a patient buyer though so I always (well, Half Life aside but that's the only title I know I'm going to buy / enjoy) wait and see what the online reaction is as well before purchasing.

i go to gamerankings but i do read reviews.

the thing is, i like games that have scored, say, in the 70s, but i still understand why they were scored as such. it's all about knowing your own tastes and knowing if you'll be ok with the flaws that may be presented in a game.

for example: one of the main reasons 'gauntlet: dark legacy' for the ps2 didn't have a great average is because it's absolutely no fun 1 or 2 player. and i agree, that's a good reason to mark down a game. however, if you have multiple friends who are into the game and can get 2 or 3 of them over to your house, then it's definitely a solid purchase.

it's all about reading the words, not just checking the scores.