Maybe you needed some time off from the game or something...

 Tried the seperation, saw my roommate beat it, killed all desire to play it again. Then I saw it on the PS3 with a HD component cable, thus making it a hideously ugly game, and it really really felt fitting.

This thread has gone on for far too long. Reviews are a good indication into an overall quality of a game (i.e the sheen/polish of it) but regarding the enjoyment factor, well that is limited to the individual. i have noticed a lot of Sony biased review sites recently who discredit wii games for the graphics rather than the gameplay but i have also noticed Nintendo sites that are overly biased towards Ninty games. Im a nintendomaniac :D but i consider myself a non-biased gamer so only read reviews for an idea of how good the game is. The decision doesnt bear any real significance on my overall purchase as i buy games that interest me or have interested me for some time.

your mother said: Gballzack said: What is this, bible class? I have to know when to interpret you literally or figuratively? How about you start actually using the RIGHT words for a change so the guesswork and need for clairvoyance is eliminated when one attempts to decipher your posts? So far you have pulled the same stunt on every single point I have addressed, every post you have trolled attempted to counter, and every thread you have trolled posted in. You know, saying things like "ONLY", "ALL" and "ALWAYS" will just land you in trouble. Again, if you actually did the right thing and went back to change your absolutes from "ALL Sony" to "MAJORITY Sony" or "SOME Sony" my post wouldn't even have materialized. And I love your power of debate: "1. Doesn't matter if you are, the point still stands." Well, doesn't matter what you try to say to spin yourself around - I'm still waiting for either a valid answer to how, based on your I've presented numerous valid response, if you don't like them then offer reasons why and not vague dodge-the-question statements. Look at the list of sites Metacritic uses... They're all pro-Sony. Seriously, just look at the list. comment, Metacritic only uses "all pro-Sony" sites to average their reviews; either that, or go back and change your very own words to something along the lines of: I said that such a statement was a Hyperbole, not to be taken literally, do you even know what a Hyperbole means? It means that what I said doesn't have to be taken literally. And if you bothered to read the rest of the text, you'd see I clarified that most concisely. Look at the list of sites Metacritic uses... Some of them are pro-Sony. Seriously, just look at the list. Otherwise, my points still stand, and the shame is on you. What points? Notice how your argument is being widdled down to less and less as I corner you? I love the power of debate. Everytime you come back you have less to say because you have less to stand on. Look you've given up arguing the validity of Game Reviewers all together. Now you're just left arguing a statement I have shown was not meant to be taken literally and another statement you've now brought out of thin air that you've yet to make any connection with to this argument. Oh and the allegation of you being a Sony Fanboy, as if that makes the following text in that description any less accurate, I could update it for you if you like? :) Listen all you're running on now is semantics and rhetoric. I've won this debate. Your increasingly weakening responses are proof of it.

Example F: Troll comeback: Late to the argument, the Troll refuses to acknowledge that the debate has moved on not in his favor. To remedy this he attacks outdated comments in the thread as if to rekindle issues already passed and resolved. To follow up this malicious attack he refuses to acknowledge anything said by the oponent and simply keeps beating the same drum of outdated issues that have already met resolution in the discussion.

there, I updated it for you. :) now you can't argue about the semantics of the word "Sony" being in there.

Also, to adress the rest of the topic, while I'm sure some game developers play the games extensively, I know many who play a game for five minutes, get a feel for the gameplay and graphics then write a review. Either way it doesn't make their review any less of an opinion. You can't measure an opinion, you can't weigh it objectively, you can't use it as a fact. Furthermore if a game is targeted at "A" and the reviewers are only measuring games by the qualities of "C-H" then the game is going to get a poor score, not because its a bad game but because it was being measured for the wrong reasons. It's simple logic everyone.

Also, Movie and Book reviews are just as subjective though a tad more professional in terms of merrit, but a review of any kind is just an opinion targeted towards a specific audience, not all audiences. Why this is so hard to understand is beyond me. The fact people need so desperately to defend Game Reviewers shows a lack of ability to judge the games for yourself or rely on a games success as satisfaction alone. Sadly, as more Sony games sell worse and worse I have a feeling I'll see more Sony fans relying on reviews to justify their sinking ship.

I think Nintendo instills something special in the people that become "fanboys" of them. Sony... I dunno seem to lack that brand loyalty, this time around at least.

Reviews are still the best method and indication of what a certain game, movie or book will be like.  Yes of course reviews are geared towards a certain audience, but seeing as most audiences with regards to video games are of a similar ilk, it should work out no problem.  I will not defend game reviewers, they are there to do a job and review a game...they may not like it or they may love it.  If they give it a bad review then fine; if I still fancy the look of a game I will still get it, but there is no doubt that if you listen to in excess of 50 reviewers for various different magazines, you are more likely to get a balance outlook of what a game is like.  Although the game may get 100% by all 50, you still may not like the game and would give it 20% or other...but generally speaking, it is very balanced and based on what a game is.

I can see that sometimes the enjoyment factor of games isn't included as part of the overall score as a separate rated section and very possibly, this should be included.  But it normally is taken into consideration along with graphics.  And I think people are downgrading the need to good graphics.  Good graphics doesn't mean they are groundbreaking and the best on the system or over all systems.  It means that they work within the context of the game.  So graphics are an integral part of the rating and scoring system alongside sound, longevity and plain entertaintment amongst others.

Oh and your last little quote that I've highlighted above really shows us all your true colours. 

Bloody hell, it's impossible to make a point. I post something and then the thread just turns into GBallzack vs. The World, and suddenly my point is lost to a gigantic flame war that engulfs the entire thread.

I suggest we make a Gballzack vs. Sony thread where we contain this beast in a single zone and let other people have some discussions around here =)

Just a little observation... I think review sites aren't really reliable... Take Tamagotchi game as example. Of course for an adult, the game would be without interest and quite boring, but for a little girl it's a blasty blast! My cousin has it and she has much fun with the game... See what I mean?

Everyone has different view on games and what they're looking for. For a certain person X game can have horrible graphics, but for another it can look pretty nice. I know most people look at those sites to know what game to get but still sometimes, you have to think of your own interests.

There might be much high rated games on the PSP vs DS but most of them don't appeal to me. So what difference does it make to me? None, in my eyes, the DS is still of more value game-wise.

Same can be said about the Wii vs PS3... To someone else, the Wii games have no importance in their eyes, so those rating don't mean anything to them.

I think the incredible worldwide success of Wii Sports despite mediocre reviews justifies this viewpoint.

However, in terms of hardcore gamers, the ones who would pay attention to these reviews, they are still (on average) picking up the DS over the PSP. I think the main reason is not because the PSP lacks games, but because the PSP lacks unique games. Games that really justify the purchase of the PSP, over a DS, or a PS2.

I find metacritic is usually a decent judge of whether games are good or not, but not a valid way of comparing games to see which is "better". If a game has bad reviews, I know it will simply not appeal to me, because it will be full of problems. But I won't say a gamethat scores 85 is better than a game that scores 72. It all depends on your taste, obviously. Obviously, people are seeing more value in the DS, despite games that are "worse", because the experience is unique and enjoyable. 

My true colors? Listen, the PS3 is doing poorly, to call it anything other than a sinking ship is to be a Sony biased. If the ship wasn't sinking you wouldn't be dumping water over board in the form of these "Sony will be alright" posts that are clogging the arteries of this forum. Further more just because I've taken a side doesn't invalidate any of my points no more than you taking a side has yours.

@ OMGWTFBBQ

They also like to attack me because its easier for them to put the weight of the argument on one person rather than try and cope with the overwhelming numbers against them.