Reviews are important as hell. Saying otherwise is moronic. Fact, is over 3/4 people look at a review to determine whether or not a game is worth buying. For the casuals, it's the review in their paper, or whereever.

I read them too, but I ignore the score. Case is, nothing is as good as a review to find out what kind of game a game is. If you refuse to read reviews, you're ignoring some of the people who are best at telling you what kind of a game the game is. You'll be missing out on important information.

To a certain degree I am doing that though, as I read relatively few reviews.

Quality cannot be measured totally objectively, but I'm fairly certain that most people would subjectively feel that the 360 has a bigger quantity of quality titles than the Wii. That's not a problem for most people though, as they're happy with the ~ 15 top notch titles on Wii.

that was my only disagreement with the OP, everything else was good. throwing wii music on top of the pile tipped the scale so to say.

Everything was balanced and cohesive and then BAM, a rant.

Its like adressing a problem with the economy and saying "this sucks, for all of us, we need to band together", and then saying "those democrats are a threat to society" and everyone is like "wtf where did that come from"

its called letting personal feelings get in the way of facts. Because it started as understanding ambivalence and degraded into anti-bias bias. His opinion that wii music is good does not mean it is good, just as the editors opinion is just an opinion.

do you see what I am getting at here?

If you notice, when you point the finger at something, three fingers (of the pointing hand) are pointing right back at you. Unless you point with an open-handed palm, for some reason

See the bottom half of my reply to Kantor.

Reviews, as they are now, are worthless. The state of gaming journalism in general is worthless, but that's a much bigger issue having to do with the writers and the credentials of the writers in general, IGN being the poster child of the whole problem.

khuutra are you saying that a majority of people don't buy games based off of reviews?
You are starting to overestimate the similarity between them and you.

I'm saying no such thing - I'm saying that they should not, and that reviews shouldn't serve the purpose of recommending purchases anyway.

Though I wouldn't go so far as to say most people do, either, because the Wii is rapidly and devastatingly proving that hypothesis incorrect.

second portion of your statement.. how so?

The correlation between review scores and sales on the Wii isn't nearly as strong as it is on the HD systems - Wii Fit doesn't even begin to compare to most games on the HD consoles in terms of reviews but it's about to outsell every single one of them before the end of the year, solely because it operates on a value system held by people who don't read reviews online.

Not yet......
I always look different sites not only one.....more reviews=better opinion for the game!
Even better... when I can try a demo...! yeah!:-0

While i agree that wii fit shows no correlation to its sales. It is a gadget, not a game.
People do not buy it because they want to play. People buy it because they want to stay home, relax, not pay expensive gym fees, etc etc...
The wii seems to capitalize off of this kind of idea of doing things you would normally do outside, inside.
Reviewers don't review how much a game will sell but how good the game is. wii fit is a poor game and could have many more features that it does not have.
This is honest fact. It doesn't do as much as it could, and that is the essence of all review.

See, that's what I meant earlier. You like your apples greener. It can't be a "fact" that Wii Fit is a poor game because the language requires an agreed-upon presupposition about what establishes the quality of "goodness", and that isn't established at all, much less agreed upon.