I know. I do. But people using numbers as arguments dont...
I merely point it out because there was a thread going back and forth about this

Relying on a Game Reviewer, regardless their credentials or experience, is still relying on another person's opinion and will always be subjective. Even determining the value and expertese of any individual developer is a matter of opinion itself. Of all the problems encountered when dealing with Reviewers the most prevalent is pehraps the lack of any garantee that the audience the game is being reviewed for is the audience the game was intended for. Niche games and specialty games seem suffer greatly at the hands of Game Reviewers who have for the last 12 years been geared toward cinematic games largely dependent on graphics or mature content. While Game Reviewers can be a somewhat convenient tool in deciding whether to check out a prospective game before hand, using them as any form of proof of a games value or quality after the fact is just childish and compeletely erroneous.

In the end Game Reviewers just become an easy excuse for someone to force their opinion over your own whether it be the justification of a game that didn't sell that well or the spiteful vindication of a console that isn't doing terribly well.

(lol, both my and Don Wii's post counts are 666)

Rather than get tied up in such an flame-worthy argument, twester, how about we say this: Critics gave Resistance an average rating of 8.6, while users gave it an 8.4. Critics gave Wii Sports an average rating of 7.6, while users gave it a 9.1. This means that critics gave Resistance a 1.0 edge over Wii Sports, while users gave Wii sports a .7 edge over Resistance. That's a total disparity of 1.7 points, which is enormous. Or, put differently: critics soundly preferred Resistance, while players soundly preferred Wii Sports. There's a disconnect between players and critics there. Theoretically, critics are intended to represent the views of the people; their value to us is as a barometer to help us make choices about which game to play, which movie to see, which restaraunt to eat at.

I'm going to give another example from Restaraunt criticism, because I think it's appropriate. Back in the 50s and before, Restaraunt criticism was based on the exquisite nature of the decor and the food, which is a euphimism for saying that fancy restaraunts automatically got better scores. It doesn't seem like a bad idea on the surface, until you start thinking of specific examples; restaraunts that serve food that is fancy, expensive, and poorly cooked would -- by definition -- get better scores than joints that are simple, cheap, but tasty and well done. A bad "fancy" restaraunt would always, always get a better review than the bestest little hot dog stand in the entire world. Obviously, that's a problem; critics were operating under the assumption that everyone wanted to eat at the fanciest restaraunts available, all the time. There was no way any hot dog stand or burger joint or deli could possibly be worth anyone's time. Ever. This was clearly unrealistic, and in the 70s, several food critics pioneered a new critical method, by which each restaraunt was judged by its purpose, not by its relative sophistication. Is a restaraunt trying to be simple, cheap, and tasty? Then that's the basis upon which it is judged. Today, this is basically how every food critic operates. I think a similar transition will take place within video games; simplistic games with low end graphics aren't automatically worse than games with super awesome graphics and really complicated controls. They certainly can be worse, but they don't have to be. These games are trying to do something very different, and they have to be judged accordingly.

The point that this topic raises for me is that you can't judge a game based on a review score.  I never look at the score until I'm done reading the review, so that I can see what the reviewer liked and disliked about the game before I get it condensed down to one number.  A graphics score of 4.0 out of 10 doesn't tell you much.  If it uses low-res textures and simplistic models, but runs at a solid 60 fps like F-Zero X, I'm fine with that.  If it looks like crap and runs at a low framerate that interferes with the motion controls like Red Steel, I'm not fine with it.  You have to look past the number and decide for yourself if you think the plusses outweigh the minuses.

sorry havent played resistance but my friends have so i guess it was a bad example. ill do a game i am playing right now to the one i just played. gow and sotc. gow is packed full of everything (except enough epic boss battles): puzzles, fighting, story, graphics, art style. sotc is extremely simple, has only a little bit of story or puzzles, but has great atmosphere. which do i think think is better? neither. gow is the more full experiance, but they both are amazing.

as a reviewer i would be obliged to give gow the better score, but in my actual review i would state that i loved each game as it is, not what more could be stuffed into it.

I believe games today should have three/four different scores, one for the single player part, one for the offline multiplayerpart, one for the online part and one for the casual part.

Why? Because that way people would be better able to judge games depending on what they are looking for in it.

That way Resistance would have good single/online scores but a low casual score because the controls are probably too complicated for a casual player. Wii play would have a 0 for online multiplayer, low for single player, high for offline multiplayer and high for casual. Can't expand on this as I gotta go to work.

Bye

Game reviewers are "gamers" first and journalists second; that's the problem the Wii and DS face in critical circles. There is no journalistic integrity in the gaming publication biz, because gaming rags and gaming sites cater to hardcore gamers while also walking the tight-rope of not angering the publishers that feed them free reviews copies and boat-loads of swag.

How does a site like IGN justify paying Joe Blow: The Common Man to write his essays on titles like Big Brain Academy and Cooking Mama, but nothing else? Simple. They don't employ such a person.

It's one great, big industry circle jerk.

yeah.  once in a while i see reviews in newspapers and those tend to diverge with the video game critic's scores.  those reviews probably influences "casual" buyers more anyway.

personally, i find RPG's and FPS shooters a waste of time.  most of them are so complex or so long that it's more like a project than a game.  if i'm gonna review those games... well, that's why i'm not reviewing those games.  and that's why hardcore gamers shouldn't use their standards to review those "casual" games.

in general the "fun" factor is not emphasized enough for these games.  a lot of reviews i've read basically goes like a checklist.  good depth?  check.  good visuals?  check.  good gameplay?  check.  good controls?  check.  good replay value?  check.

for casual games, there simply should be a different set of criteria that emphasizes different aspects.  easy visuals?  for one.  crystal clear presentation?  another.  accessibility?  yep.  easy to pick up and just play?  important.  relevence to personal experience?  yeah.  justification for playing?  absolutely.

more on "justification for playing": for gamers, you play a game if it's fun.  for casual players--or at least a significant portion of them--you need more than just "fun".  my friends and i agree on this.  we feel guilty about playing games and not doing work, so we find justification to playing them.  family, exercise, mental training, whatever.  usually the excuses are flimsy, but that's better than none.

I just want to point something out, because I think a lot of people are taking this off the topic I originally intended: game reviewers were never the ultimate, final voice in the decision to buy a game for me and I believe I can safely say almost anyone. But generally speaking, reviews lined up reasonably well with general opinion. I might personally think the game was a bit worse, and John Smith might think the game is a bit better, but overall, game reviewers did a reasonably good job of giving a review that represented what would eventually be the opinion of many.

To emphasize: I think we can all agree that critics were never perfect. That's not something I'm trying to argue here. Instead, I want to point out that critics are even less adept now than they were before. Noticably and significantly so. 

No, they are just unable to rate "casual games." As Lingyis already stated, reviewers are hard core gamers, and review casual games with the wrong set of criteria. In reality, it isn't the reviewer who can't review casual games accurately, it is the criteria that he/she is using that is to blame.