I notice there has been an increasing amount of controversy, particularly surrounding reviews of Grand Theft Auto IV and Metal Gear Solid 4, as to whether or not reviews are to be trusted, or exactly what reviews are supposed to be.

I want to be clear here: when I speak of the "purpose" of reviews, I do not speak of their utility. If you think that the purpose of a review lies inwhat it can be used for - how to influence your buying decisions, the aggregate scoring of games for a more wide-range comparison of quality, or whatever, that's fine, but the definition of purpose is not limited to that. What I mean to ask is not what should reviews do, I mean to ask what reviews should be.

That is the question I pose to you: what should a review be, ideally? What should it talk about? From what perspective should it speak, by whom should it be written? Is there a universal standard of quality? Is the point system necessary? Do all reviews need to have a score?

I plan to write a relatively long article about this question (and I'm sure you can gleam some of my opinions from the phrasing of this topic), but first I want to open it to discussion to get an understanding of the feelings of the community.

So - let's go.

Okay, I will bite first.

Personally I have no question with the integrity of reviewers. There are bad ones out there.. (Gamespot), but most of them are good.

the latest controversy (if it can be even called) is merely another form of attack on so called "game reviewer" by Nintendo fans. It started with WiiSport, and every other games that didn't get SMG score. They go from claiming reviewers are biased, to claiming they don't know how to review "new brand" of gaming, to downright dismiss them as "hating on Nintendo"

Frankly, I don't care, game reviews lived for as long as it did, it will live through this.

In my opinion the only purpose of video game reviews is to give MGS4 10/10.

 Mmm. Fair point, but not what I mean to ask. This isn't about reviewers: this is about reviews themselves. Not their current state, but what they would be ideally.

 What do you think is the ideal form of a review?

I use game reviews to find out about a game. Once I know more about it ... I want to know if it works.

(I should have listened when IGN said Wii Cranium Kabooki did not pick up motion well -- because they were right).

Mike from Morgantown

 well, according to 1up (on G4 tv interview) and IGN (in more than 1 podcast), they have specifically stated that their defintion of score is based purely on "FUN". Is the gameplay fun? Is the graphic pleasing? Is there lasting appeal? Is it worth your money??? All evolving around the idea of fun.

Also, it's very good at informing someone who has no idea what the game about into buying a game. Of course, they aren't always right, that's why you read more than one.

A good review should started out explaning the game, then stating all the positive and then the negative, and then give you some kind of recommendation (either buy/rent or review score) 

there is nothing wrong with reviews, it's just someone's opinion. The biggest problem i had was the fact so many people started hating on gta because of its reviews which was pure envy.

 Edit:

 psrock: do you think that there is any way in which the review system itself might be improved?