Like many of you, I hate reviewers, reviews, and the fan/foe boys who boast them, and yes, like many of you, from time to time I quote them when they suit my argument.

That said, doing a little investigating I was able to find a great example to point out to everyone.

Summary	Release Date: 9/30/1998
Category: Role-Playing, PC-style RPG
No Game Summary Available.   Visit the Fallout 2 Forum	RANKINGS RATIO / USER Overall Ranking: 448 127 PC Ranking: 100 26 All 1998 Releases: 12 8 PC 1998 Releases: 5 5

Vastly under-rated has history has shown us, now:

Summary	Release Date: 10/28/2008
Category: Role-Playing, First-Person
Vault-Tec engineers have worked around the clock on an interactive reproduction of Wasteland life for you to enjoy from the comfort of your own vault. Included is an expansive world, unique combat, shockingly realistic visuals, tons of player choice, and an incredible cast of dynamic characters. Every minute is a fight for survival against the terrors of the outside world – radiation, Super Mutants, and hostile mutated creatures. From Vault-Tec, America’s First Choice in Post Nuclear Simulation.   Visit the Fallout 3 Forum	RANKINGS RATIO / USER Overall Ranking: 52 -- X360 Ranking: 8 -- All 2008 Releases: 5 -- X360 2008 Releases: 2 -

My argument isn't that Fallout 2 is better than Fallout 3, I've never played Fallout 3, I couldn't comment. My argument is that Fallout 2 is obviously better than the reviews indicate via aggregate review sites(certainly even moreso, if the below example A holds up). These games have roughly the same current number of reviews, from many of the same sources. 26 verses 30.

Standard arguments:

A. Standards change, so games rated now, who get low scores, are actually better than games from 10 or even 2 years ago.

B. Reviews aren't based off the quality of the game, but the hype surrounding it.

C. Standards differ between platforms.

D. Reviewers are corrupt.

E. According to the law of large numbers, with enough reviews, aggregate scores will be very close to "correct" estimations of quality.

The problem with all these arguments is they are opinion. There is evidence for and against each one of them. Some seem relatively obvious, like C, while others seem impossible, like D, but there are exceptions, and examples where each argument fails and succeeds. Who is to say what is the rule and what is the exception that proves or disproves it.

What it comes down to is this. Websites don't review games. Magazines don't review games. They don't. Plain and simple. Only people review games, my friends, and people are ignorant. All of us. Nobody knows everything about anything(except for your humble OP, of course). So somebody gave Resistance or Gears an 8/10 because their girlfriend threw them out on their ass. All it is, is a conjecture based opinion.

We've become slaves to the AAA ranking. We use these numbers in our arguments, when they suit us, and call them out for the bogus hogwash they are, when they don't. When Fable 2 was 89% on metacritic, it was, and still is the same game it was when it moved up to 90%, and if it drops down again, guess what...same game. Putting your faith in these aggregate review sites for your gaming purchases is the same thing as buying the hogswallop examples at the top of this page.

Watch trailers, pick genres you like, deduce and investigate your gaming purchases through others opinion. Don't let your gaming be ruined by some bogus numbers from a website that doesn't even count all the reviews, and who can't figure out the proper numerical rating for a B-.

/bow

A and C are wonderful points that couldn't be emphasised enough. They fundamentally make comparing games based on review scores useless, which is obviously true. Standards are undeniably important when considering reviews and are all too often ignored by ignorant gamers.

E is also largely true statistically, however I have yet to see a game reviewed by enough people for this to apply (although for the most part games are reviewed by enough people to make a more than reasonable estimate).

But ultimately reviews were never meant to be used like gamers currently do. They are only meant to inform someone whether something is worth buying. As it is, they do a pretty good job at it but sites like gamerankings are fundamentally useless.

those are WJRPG my stance those game shouldn't get even over 8. but thats another 10 cents
its not like 0.5 points are a huge diffrence

thats why there are many reviews... even if some of them are corrupted there is a average ratio.

look at Little big planet a refresing change from the shovelware casuals nintendo its getting and hardcore FPS that industry pumps out.

it have everything online , co op, multiplayer, awesome single player, impulse creativity.
and today overall one of the biggest score in gamming.

Very astute observations Picko.

Ok, derailed. Are you telling me that no WRPG should ever get over an 8/10?

Also, look at GTAIV or Halo 3. Rated around equal or higher than LBP. Are these games also where they belong?

You shouldn't base your argument around "I like LBP, and it got good reviews, so I'll defend the review system to defend LBP."

Reviews are stupid. Using the term AAA is even more. Saying that 90%+ on metacritics is AAA doesn't even make any sense.

This is sad but very true..

my point was 0.5 difference wouldn't make a difference.

you can say people feelings or "hype" affect the scores but that the same for all games, thats why there is a average for all the reviews.

i thought halo 3 was good, same as GTA4 if they got a higher average its because of that... not 100% of the sites are biased the average will show you that.

Lair was hyped an AWFUL lot.

Reviews mattered there.

Ditto Haze.

Nintendo Channel stats > Reviews


If the game is good, people will play it a lot.