I always read what IGN has to say in game reviews, Never really went to gamespot for reviews

I like Van-Ord, Matt, and Bozon. The rest range from meh, to fanboy.

I've never been a huge fan of Gamespot (I find their reviews to be intentionally harsh) but after that Kane and Lynch Fiasco, I've been put off by them forever.

As for IGN, I don't particularly mind that PS3 reviews get lower than 360's alot of time, because alot of what they say is quite warranted (framerate issues in multiplatform EA sport games). What I don't like is the copy and paste nature of their reviews, they credit two different authors for what is essentially the exact same review (with the exception of swapping console names and a random paragraph or two describing the difference between them).

I wouldn't say they were bias to the 360 though, or else they wouldn't have separate teams for each platform doing reviews (talking about exclusives here, not the copy and paste garbage for multiplatform games). I would hate for an internet where people changed their opinion to agree with the masses, If i wanted that I'd just stick to the real world. That's why I actually enjoy the PS3 versions usually (not always) getting a lower review score, so I can see how uneffected the reviewers are by the flame comments (Heck, even the dude that reviewed Lair told people to flame him for giving a low score!)

On IGN, Jeff Haynes, Matt and Bozon are probably the only article writers I consistently enjoy reading. You can tell they are fanboys, but at least they know it and make fun of themselves (and each other). The rest are pretty much the stereotypical nerdy gamer.

IMO both bad.... but once again.. I hate ratings.... the only thing I look at sometime on IGN it's the gamers rating average when i'm looking for used game to buy....

I think it's all about the person doing the review... I used to do that for a french website and I realized that whatever you think of a game someone will think exactly the opposite.... so when you look at a review look at the writer... after a couple hundreds of review on a wide range of website, you'll probably end up finding a reviewer you agree with, most of the time.... then just read his reviews and they'll probably suite your tastes... meaning that when he says a game is bad, you'll probably don't like that game either, and when he says a game is great, you'll probably love it.... (the fact that he/you are right or wrong about it doesn't really matter, the point is to play games YOU like, not games the majority likes) same kind of rule apply to movie reviews....

I trust IGN more.. Gamespot.. Never heard of it.

Bozie and Mattyboy make IGN great!
Gamespot I never use..

IGN and Gamespot are both biased towards wherever the money points them. How many of you actually use sites that don't have big sponsor deals with the three console giants and don't ask money for downloading of their servers? Gamershell or blues for example...

They are both tainted by bias. For hyped games, Gamespot often rates below expectations, while IGN sometimes rates games too highly (Jade Empire). I also think both sites are too harsh on casual titles.

exactly

IGN are good, I have no problem with them.

But Gamespot are horrible for reviews, I only go there for the forums. Their underrating of PS3 games is silly- these morons gave Ratchet and Clank a 7.5 and Assassin's Creed a 9.0. After the Jeff Gertsmann situation, no-one trusts them for their reviews, serves them right.