I think we all sort of don't give a shit about reviews - we buy what we expect to like. Perhaps I'm wrong - has this changed?

What do you want out of a review?  

Is a 1-10 scale appropriate, 1-5 stars, or perhaps just a thumbs up/down system? A nuetral visual presentation simply highlighting the features of the game? Unless it is atrociously bad or good I want something that is of the neutral/descriptive type. But I want to be impressed, immersed, and entertained. I think Nintendo nailed it when they did a special direct that wasn't a summary of company scheduling but a Direct specifically focused on the marketing of one game in all its entireity.

I would describe that link as essentially just a high quality "presentation" of the game. How would you like it if every game from every company got this sort of treatment from blogger and review websites?

The larger question at hand is the nature of reviews. Do they matter? If altered would they matter again? What would make them impactful?

Nope. You can't speak for everyone. Reviews most certainly influence people and I'm sure much more than some are even willing to admit.

I do care about reviews, but the overall rating, not a particular reviewer/person. Gamesradar's particular review on any given game means nothing to me, but the metascore of a game after 50-90 reviews have been taken into account does speak about its quality. The user score mean shit because they go from 0 to 100 if one thing alone is not perfect.
I only expect professionalism and congruence.
A 1-10 scale, with 0.5 decimals is appropiate.
But most important: Be very specific and transparent about the criteria used to judge.

I care about reviews and they do influence me on certain times on wether I buy a game or not.Be it because I dont have the time to research properly, or because you wotn know how the game will end up turning, reviews provide a definitive view on wether the game is for you or not.As long as you find a reviewer that suits your taste and writes well, you should regard his opinion on the highest regard.Not only because he is supposedely a professional and knows more about gaming than you(or should know more), but because he played the game.I dont have the time nor the money to buy and play shitty games, or even mediocre games.

And no, seeing playthroughts on youtube is not an option.It just spoils the game.

As for the scale, 0-10 is the best, and as many decimals and needed.The more precise it is, the better.

I can share my perspective, which is that of a video game reviewer who also consumes a lot of reviews.

I want to be educated.

That means the reviewer tells me about the nuts & bolts of the game: mechanics, modes, scenario, options, etc. It might also include a lesson on video game history or culture.

I want to be entertained.

Whether through clever language, humor, or even sarcasm, I expect a reviewer to use his/her vocabulary and wit to wrap a review in entertaining prose. Anyone can list multiplayer modes and recapitulate a story; a good critic has more tools in his/her tool belt.

I want to be treated with honesty.

Reviewers should be honest with themselves and their audience. They should be consistent in their review criteria and independent of publisher/advertiser interference.

This is what I try to achieve in my writing, and what I expect from others.

I like the concept of a metascore a lot.

As for the bolded, in your view how often does this lead to a matter of most games simply regressing into a 5-10 category where all games below 5 are sort of in the "very bad" pool? I always felt that was a flaw of that system.

SInce you are more in the review world than I am how often would you say your last criteria is met? I mean aren't all the companies in bed the bloggers and reviewers these days?

Also, which places do you feel meet your criteria in general?

I'm speaking casually so in no way do I think I am "officially" speaking for everyone. This is an entertainment forum, not a philosophy forum.

Well, I think reviews usually don't affect people's judgments. However, I feel if certain criteria are met then it has an impact.

• All reviews are saying the same things and are in agreement about said game's quality
• The game is very unknown, thus the review takes precedent over premade conceptions
• The review is controversial, ie goes against the expected (like a very bad review of a game in a signature series: Halo, Metal Gear, Mario).

That list isn't mutually exclusive by any means and I just thought of those off the top of my head, but I think a run-of-the-mill review generally has little effect on mainstream consumption.

I won't lie. It's a problem. YouTube, for example, is the wild west. Even with disclosures, it's difficult to tell who's been paid to give a glowing review and who's in it just for free games and swag.

There are also a lot of scandals and/or whisper campaigns surrounding the big names like Polygon, IGN, GameSpot, etc. Unfortunately, the line between editorial and advertising departments at some publications is blurred. It doesn't help that publishers use strong-arm tactics to get positive press, and fans piss and moan whenever a favorite game gets a mediocre score.

That depend a lot on the reviewer tho. It does happen often because everyone's criteria is different. Take Gamespot for example, they dont mind giving a 10 rating to a game if, even tho it may have flaws, those flaws dont ruin the amazing experience the sum of its other parts can bring. And thats a view I agree with,  I dont share the idea that "there are no perfect games and therefore no game should ever be a 10". 
But, staying with Gamespot as an example, they hardly ever give negative reviews. It seems they dont know how to judge so they simply give a 7 or 8, and as a result most games have that rating. No Man Sky is a 7 to them, but World of Final Fantasy is a 6. Makes sense? only games that are broken, or have a huge amount of errors get below 5. And thats were they lose me. And a lot of reviewers do the same. They dont know how/want to give a bad review to a bad game. As a result we now treat a Metascore of below 80 as a "bad game" because 7 is now not a good rate.