No one is attacking you, they are attacking your lack of logic.  Your logic:  games that sell well are the best and every game that doesnt sell well is terrible.  That's the stupidiest thing anyone has said/implied on this forum in all the time I've been reading.  I am completely serious.  That's worse than being a fanboy of any particular system.  That's worse than being a troll.  

Thank you, your mother, for trying to argue against an unreasonable troll.  And very nice pictures.

I've said many times that the PS3 and Wii have very few great games.  I enjoy many of the PS3 games that have not gotten 85%+, and many people have enjoyed similarly rated Wii games.  However, this notion that review scores are useless is beyond my comprehension.  I've read a lot of magazines over the years, and from playing both highly rated and badly rated games, I can honestly say that review scores are very helpful.  Are they the end-all judgement?  Of course not, everyone is different. 

But to try to tell everyone that they are all biased and not to be trusted is just ridiculous.  It's like trying to tell me that I buy games simply because I want a certain company to do well!  Just fyi, but in the end all I want to do is have fun playing games.  I'm not going to buy them all, so I read reviews to HELP weed out bad games.  I've read PSM since the PS1 was out, and it's not like they rate every game a 10/10 just because they only review playstation games.  Not every magazine is Nintendo Power (I used to subscribe back in the SNES days...not the best...probably better now).  PSM is completely independant.  Now, that's just one magazine, and of course some reviewers are biased.  Everyone is biased.  But for the most part, reviewers do their best to be objective and compiling a huge group of them is going to give you a graet general idea of how good a game is.  That's why they exist. 

I particularly enjoy EGM because they not only seem fair but give you 3 scores for every review.  They will disagree amonst themselves and give reasons for how they feel.  Generally, the scores are close.  Generally, compiling a list of reviews with metacritic (and gamerankings.com which is very close to the same scores) gives you an idea how good a game is.  I use it to great success, and so do a lot of people.  

Someone brought up the point that gamers on this forum are no worse than game reviewers.  Concerning game knowledge, that may be true, but if you were good enough to be a game journalist then maybe you should be.  However, the point is that they are gamers too, so if all the reviewers are basically like us, and get early access to games to tell us how good a game is, then obviously that's a person one should go to when trying to decide to purchase or rent a game.  If we are all the same, and they have played the game, there is no reason to throw out their opinion, especially when you compile all of their opinions. 

Also, reading game reviews can give you information about the game, such as how bad the F.E.A.R. port was for the PS3 (ugh).  Those reviewers had played multiple versions of the game and could tell the differences.  How is that not useful?

Typing this was probably pointless, but oh well.  Gballzack, I do wonder, how do you decide to buy games if you don't trust review scores?  You have time to try them all?  Maybe if you just play the Wii I guess...Personally, I have PS2 games I haven't finished, too many PS3 games/demos to play (including Japanese and UK account demos and Warhawk beta), PSP games I want to play, and a Nintendo Wii to buy for Strikers and others.  There is no way I have time to play all of the games.  I like to narrow them down.  I do not wait for sales because #1 I don't want to play Pokemon and #2 I like games like Okami.

Again, another troll... sigh... Talk about the Pot calling the Kettle Black. I can't help but notice how you leaped over the sea of those who supported my statements on this to single me out alone. Sigh...

Listen it's quite simple.

Game Reviewers are subjective. They cannot be used as factual proof of a game's value by proxy of what they are, opinions. Of what value a Game Review is, is up to the individual to decide.

The only element of determining a game's success is its sales. What good are sales? Depends, but its the only objective thing you have to prove anything.

To a lesser degree you can combine these two elements with fanbase to created a collective of circumstantial evidence to create a theory, but that's about it.

My issue with this is in people trying to use Reviews as proof of anything, which this thread is essentially about. To spear head my point I showed clearly that the majority of sources used on Metacritics were Sony or Graphics biased adding further damning evidence to the frey.

All of the issues you've brought up have been addressed but you refuse to acknowledge these and then just turn around and try and act as if I'm being the one unreasonable when you are in fact the one ignoring the issues I've adressed. Ignoring the overwhelming support for my side of the argument. And ignoring the context of the discussion.

Everytime I bring up damning evidence against you or one of your cohorts you simply fall back to another issue as if the first never happened and continue doing so forth and so forth arguing in circles and playing a game of rhetorical hop skotch. you can't keep pace with the debate so you get lost in it and try to bog me down as you now are with your own confused and messy replies. If you feel you make such a convincing case then try taking your argument up with someone else other than me, or am I the only person worth debating with here? :)

Face it, the only ground you have on me is the argument that my original statement that all the sources for Metacritic being Sony biased wasn't a hyperbole. Not that you even know what that word means but I'm sure that's all part of the confusion here you're simply dismissing as me being a troll. I'm not a troll simply because you can't keep up with a debate and only jump in part way through the thread, it is you who is now the troll, not I.

OK, let's take it from the top again, shall we?

Get back to me when you have edited all your posts from:

"Look at the list of sites Metacritic uses... They're all pro-Sony. Seriously, just look at the list."

to:

"Look at the list of sites Metacritic uses... Some of the sites are pro-Sony. Seriously, just look at the list. But gee whiz, there are actually some pro-Nintendo and pro-Microsoft sites listed as well."

And about this gem of a comment of yours: 

"Face it, the closest thing you're going to ever get to an objective source is the game sales."

Get back to me when you have slightly better logic to fling around and don't suffer from "Spider-Man 3 Syndrome". I hear Extra-Medicated Ouendan can help alleviate the nasty symptoms you are suffering. (Oh, I am being figurative.)

And about this nugget of gold of a remark: 

"How about you list all of Metacritics sources and lets see how unbiased they are then? And praise from sony owned websites doesn't matter much either I'm afraid."

I have. You have a gripe with fact? Seriously now...

Don't deviate from the topic. I just want honest answers from you on the above highlighted; namely how Metacritic sites are all pro-Sony, how the number of games sold is a measure of its quality, and how Metacritic is biased towards Sony. I don't want remarks like "I said it figuratively, not literally" because I unfortunately am not clairvoyant or have a degree in Nostradamusology to know when you are being figurative or literal.

I shouldn't have to be the one to look up the Rosetta stone to figure out that when you say this:

"Look at the list of sites Metacritic uses... They're all pro-Sony. Seriously, just look at the list."

You really meant to say this:

"I never claimed all of Metacritics sites were Sony based..."

Because, you know, those two phrases that you typed directly contradict each other. Do you perhaps suffer from some kind of multiple personality disorder, bipolar disorder or other forms of schizophrenia that you don't even realize you have directly contradicted yourself in the very same thread? 

Perhaps you can take a course in remedial English to improve on your semantics? Or perhaps simply buy Reader's Digest - I believe they still have that section called "It Pays to Improve Your Word Power" which might help your cause and allow you to understand the difference between relative and absolute terms. And I don't need to understand the definition of trolling - I've got you as a perfect example

Get back to me when you actually have something objective to say regarding the above.

The only thing game sales prove is whether a game has sold successfully or not. Period. It doesn't prove anything else at all, and it certainly isn't a measure of a game's quality, how fun the game is, or how good the game is, no matter how you want to slice it.

Exactly, that's my whole point! Finally you understand! The only proof of a game's worth we have means jack shit, so in otherwords we have no way of knowing how good a game was outside of someone else's opinion! And opinions aren't fact! And if its not a fact, its worthless in a debate! Finally I think I'm making progress with you! If you actually bothered to read any of my replies you would have seen this by now!

GAME REVIEWS ARE NOT FACT! THEY ARE OPINION! YOU CANNOT USE OPINIONS TO PROVE THINGS! THE ONLY THING WE CAN PROVE IS HOW GOOD A GAME SOLD! AND IF THAT'S NOT USEFULL THEN DON'T ACT LIKE THERE IS ANY TRUTHFUL WAY OF KNOWING HOW GOOD A GAME IS!

That has been my whole argument all along, by god, I think you finally get it! Now if you can lash these simple concepts together I might not have to keep repeating myself every fucking time you reply saying the same goddamn thing over and over after its adressed each and every other time.

Listen to what I have to say now and listen fucking Good!

- I never once claimed that Game Sales = Game Quality! NEVER!

- I merely pointed out GAme sales to show it was the closest thing we had to determining a Games Quality because Game Reviews prove nothing! And if something as worthless as Game Sales is all we have, then why bother acting like anything else is better?!

- Reviews are opinions and Opinions aren't FACT! The are Subjective assessments geared towards specific and circumstantial situations.

- If you want to believe in Game Reviewers, that's fine, don't act like they prove anything though.

MORE TROLLS MORE TROLLS MORE TROLLS MORE TROLLS MORE TROLLS MORE TROLLS MORE TROLLS MORE TROLLS MORE TROLLS MORE TROLLS MORE TROLLS MORE TROLLS MORE TROLLS MORE TROLLS MORE TROLLS MORE TROLLS MORE TROLLS MORE TROLLS MORE TROLLS MORE TROLLS MORE TROLLS MORE TROLLS

Anyway, I generally dont rely on Game Review websites. So, to anwser the question the thread was asking, No. I am just not so interested in ANY of them that are available at the moment.

These are the TOP 10 reviews for Resistence: FoM...... They are ALL pro sony huh? wow, tell you what I even through in one of the lower ratings, so they must be anti sony

GameShark

From graphics and sound to story and gameplay, Resistance scores on all fronts and gives the PS3 its first killer app. Can it do for the console what Halo did for the Xbox? Only time will tell.

100

AceGamez

Harking back to my all-time favorite FPS, "Goldeneye," the deep, solid gameplay mixed with ambience and killer multiplayer makes for a pretty great game.

97

eToychest

Probably the finest first-person shooter to ever grace a console, Resistance: Fall of Man is easily worth your $50, and may be considered by some to even be enough to justify the $650 investment alone.

95

PGNx Media

The sound effects are great with superb weapon and vehicle effects.

95

GameZone

It would have been a remarkable title a year into the life of the PS3, but as it is a launch title, it is even more remarkable. With incredible graphics, an evolving story, great action and weapons, Insomniac and Sony have nailed the launch of the game and system seamlessly.

95

Game Informer

The surperbly implemented online tracking and ranking services, plus the rich and varied content, makes Resistance's multiplayer one of the game’s strongest features. Graphically, the game is simply stunning, and when you tie in all the single player and mutliplayer components it is easily the PlayStation 3's premiere, must-have title.

95

Playstation 3 Advanced

Resistance also is amongst the best storytelling this genre has probably ever seen. It's all told through documentary-style narration that takes itself very seriously.

95

TotalPlayStation

Insomniac nailed the sense of scale, and delights in alternately throwing plot twists and growing and shrinking level designs to keep things interesting throughout the experience.

95

Next Level Gaming

This is one of the better single player experiences in 2006 and the multiplayer only helps add to the replayablilty.

First off, stop swearing like a pimple-faced prepubescent teenager whose best friend goes by the name "Angst".

Second, address my other points before moving on, please.

Third, your "GAME REVIEWS ARE NOT FACT! THEY ARE OPINION! YOU CANNOT USE OPINIONS TO PROVE THINGS! THE ONLY THING WE CAN PROVE IS HOW GOOD A GAME SOLD! AND IF THAT'S NOT USEFULL THEN DON'T ACT LIKE THERE IS ANY TRUTHFUL WAY OF KNOWING HOW GOOD A GAME IS!"

does not require CAPS, and "I merely pointed out GAme sales to show it was the closest thing we had to determining a Games Quality because Game Reviews prove nothing! And if something as worthless as Game Sales is all we have, then why bother acting like anything else is better?!"

Edit: You also said: "Whether those games are good or bad are matters of opinion and taste. There is no fact that one was any better than the other outside of what a few people can agree upon. The best estimate that can be given on a games objective value is its sales, whether we agree with that or not, its the closest thing we have." No. It's not.

is not a measure of a game's quality. At all. And I never once said or acted like there is any truth in game reviews or in game sales as a measure of a game's quality. It's YOU who brought these points up. All I said was that Metacritic does not in fact have any sort of pro_Sony bias like you so boldly claimed "literally", then retracted "figuratively".

If anything, you really need to brush up on your English reading comprehension skills. And your English writing skills while you're at it. After all, all these contradictions are just the result of your actually typing in such contradictions in the first place.

vizunary said: Gballzack said: Look at the list of sites Metacritic uses... They're all pro-Sony. Seriously, just look at the list. I've seen this exact same argument used before on other forums and each and every time its been called out on the basis that it uses Metacritic as a source. Face it, the closest thing you're going to ever get to an objective source is the game sales. An honestly if the Quality over Quantity argument didn't work for the N64 and GC, why do you think its going to work for the PS3 and PSP? Shame on you Davygee, shame on you, you should have known better than to try something like this.   These are the TOP 10 reviews for Resistence: FoM...... They are ALL pro sony huh? wow, tell you what I even through in one of the lower ratings, so they must be anti sony 100 GameShark From graphics and sound to story and gameplay, Resistance scores on all fronts and gives the PS3 its first killer app. Can it do for the console what Halo did for the Xbox? Only time will tell. 100 AceGamez Harking back to my all-time favorite FPS, "Goldeneye," the deep, solid gameplay mixed with ambience and killer multiplayer makes for a pretty great game. 97 eToychest Probably the finest first-person shooter to ever grace a console, Resistance: Fall of Man is easily worth your $50, and may be considered by some to even be enough to justify the $650 investment alone. 95 PGNx Media The sound effects are great with superb weapon and vehicle effects. 95 GameZone It would have been a remarkable title a year into the life of the PS3, but as it is a launch title, it is even more remarkable. With incredible graphics, an evolving story, great action and weapons, Insomniac and Sony have nailed the launch of the game and system seamlessly. 95 Game Informer The surperbly implemented online tracking and ranking services, plus the rich and varied content, makes Resistance's multiplayer one of the game’s strongest features. Graphically, the game is simply stunning, and when you tie in all the single player and mutliplayer components it is easily the PlayStation 3's premiere, must-have title. 95 Playstation 3 Advanced Resistance also is amongst the best storytelling this genre has probably ever seen. It's all told through documentary-style narration that takes itself very seriously. 95 TotalPlayStation Insomniac nailed the sense of scale, and delights in alternately throwing plot twists and growing and shrinking level designs to keep things interesting throughout the experience. 95 Next Level Gaming This is one of the better single player experiences in 2006 and the multiplayer only helps add to the replayablilty. 95 Pure Magazine UK With the framerate locked at 30fps the chance of seeing any slowdown is almost zero. [Mar 2007, p.48] 70 Playstation Official Magazine UK Resistance is a fine game, and easily capable of standing up to the scrutiny a big launch title attracts. But it doesn't quite do enough to make us add 'the Chimera, on Tower Bridge, with the Bullseye' to our list of classic shooter moments. [Apr 2007, p.104] Those damn anti-sony haters over there at POM: UK, wait I take that back, it seems like your the main anti-sony troll that's around here.

My goodness! What's the world coming to? A pro-Sony site commenting negatively on a Sony game?

Armageddon is nigh upon us!

What, then, do you rely on?  Do you buy games based on licenses?  Do you only buy Mario games because you think all Mario games will be good (generally they are)?  Do you not try new IPs?  Do you try all games to decide for yourself?  That would certainly be an impressive feat.

The fact of this whole debate is that game reviews are quite useful in determining how good a game is.  If you actually read the reviews (*gasp*) you can get a feel for why they rated the game a certain way and can then decide for yourself whether you agree with the assessment.