yeah yeah... Nintendo team is awesome, other teams ranked their games too high.

Nintendo podcast is great, other podcast are bad.

Pretty accurate summary, wouldn't you say? Can you say... biased? ;)

 Hah the only one I said I didn't like was a couple of members of the Sony team and here you waltz in calling people biased, you should look in the mirror sometime, I like the Xbox team and the PC team, the Sony team has a couple of fanboys on their team that jump on Nintendo games like most fanboys do and call them kiddy, dumb, etc and not even play the game, these are the same guys that rank some Sony games too high, sorry to break it to ya I was stating what happens on the site cause I've been a follower for years, you're the biased one who can't stand anything bad said about Sony.

Being a nearly avid reader of IGN, I would tend to agree that the MS and Sony teams are far worse and less involved than the Nintendo team.

The other podcasts are often of lower quality, simply due to the lack of real information and amount of filler in them.

And, in all cases, even when the site virtually agrees that a game is better on the Wii, like Bully, Sonic Tennis, and PES: Soccer, the Wii review scores are still lower, than the other teams, because Matt and Bozon are simply much more strict reviewers.

There is no biased in my opinion at all, that is just my general observation, and I would say that I hate all of IGN equally. Dismissing these claims as blind fanboyism is ignorance, because if you don't believe them, you've probably not spent enough time on IGN observing, and therefore are "ignorant" of the facts about the website.

For the record, IGN sucks as a whole website. Gamespot is a much more credible site, imo, simply due to the fact that they don't use the "company teams" angle which promotes the fanboyism that runs rampant in the IGN offices, particularly the Microsoft team.

However, giantbomb.com is the most pro 360 biased website on the internet, and is a blight and joke to all credible review sites.

That is the site of gamespot editors who were fired for whatever reason, and now admit their bias towards the Xbox 360(and dislike of the PS3 and Wii), on that website.

IGN , Gametrailers.

A few games are rated to low or too high but they are pretty trustworthy for the most part

 I'm sorry, Have I ever said that "SOny team is great, while other teams overrated their games"??? hmmm... *looks up*.

Frankly, I have no problem with you canlling Sony team "fanboys", in fact, all teams consist of fanboys, that's what they get paid for. What I DO have a problem is you claiming other teams rated their game too high while Nintendo team is perfect.

 That... itself is biased. 

Trust most: GameRankings, MetaCritic
Honorable mention: IGN
Trust least: 1up

I use gamerankings.com, which gives a nice idea of how good a game is and I select some reviews of sites I know who at least explain why they give a certain figure.

For normal reviews I usually pick IGN. And for RPG's I usually also pick a RPG ite like RPG Fan.

I prefer to look at the average on metacritic then look at the quotes from reviews. If I'm still unsure I'll read some of the full reviews from the top, bottom and middle scores. I chose metacritic over game rankings as I don't like the game rankings layout. Metacritic seems more user friendly.

Trust: IGN, Gametrailers
Distrust: 1up, Gamespot