Amazon is one of the few places I semi trust user votes (if something has at least 20 votes). Although there are a lot of casuals voting there, at least they keep track of who votes and you have to have an account...

I think this site could be great for user votes, if it kept track of who voted what...

That's easy.

They play 10 minutes of a game and then form an opinion on the whole game based on those 10 minutes and then they tell us if it sucks or not.

As opposed to 80% of user reviewers who don't even play the game and rate it 1/10 or 10/10 based on what console it's on or if we're lucky, play it for five minutes, say it's slow and the graphics suck and COD4's graphics are better and that they returned it before they even bought it.

Some of those were actually real, by the way. And the COD4 graphics thing was in an MGS4 review. Go figure.

well i read that the Fallout sucks on ps3 so that score might be true.....
(everyone knows i am a ps3 fanboy so im not trolling link below. but i hate lazy devs so if you have a 360 buy it for that system)

http://www.n4g.com/News-219697.aspx

That's the exact same thing that we used to have on VGC with the ratings.

Thank god they're gone.

If you click on the games database, and then sort by score, you can see that Wild Arms three is almost as good as Zelda:OoT And Final fantasy Dissidia is better than Super mario.

User reviews fail.

User scores don't fail.

Multiple votes from unvalidated users fail.


Problem with the scores that used to be here is that people could vote more than once. (Which actually wouldn't be bad to allow people to change their score, but to include both is bad...)

 How does a fanboy voting war impact your enjoyment of the game?

 From a user perspective, sure. But from their perspective, anything that generates hits is a good thing.