There is a chance that what the reviewer is reviewing is not a final build of the game. For example, Shaun White Snowboarding. The reviewer didn't play the Target version with the extra level, which really is the complete version of the game, or the recent 1UP review fo Skate It, where EA didn't give them the final edition to review.

Besides the fact that some reviewers don't even finish the games or dedicate more than 2-3 days to playing them, there could be a problem in which they aren't even playing the same game we are.

This type of thing doesn't happen too often I hope, but it is something to think about before you click on that review website, or open a gaming magazine.

Well IMO many times you dont have to finish a game to be able to tell an opinion... common, if an RPG or FPS is boring chances are minimal that it will get any better... if the basics are broken, it cant get any better ;)

This is the case with Motorstorm 2 and R2, for example.

Yea, I think expecting Reviewers to always finish games before reviwing them might be a bit much. I mean think of what would ahppen with the really long games.

Take White Knight Chronicles for example its supposed to have over 100 hours worth of single player then after that there's the multiplayer. Would you actually think a reviewer would have time to complete all of the game and play the online before reviewing I wouldn't that would take way too long and we'd probably get the review late.

My biggest gripe is when a reviewer admits they're not a really big fan of the genre of the game they're reviewing. Why the hell were they assigned to this game?

 I also think that to some extent, we're guilty of the same thing.  I'm referring to passing judgement on a game based only on a partial experience.  How many games have you decided sucked after only a few hours of play when maybe if you had stuck with them, you would have really enjoyed them?  I really didn't get into Far Cry 2 for the first few hours, but now I love it.

The biggest problem with game reviews is that nobody has nailed down a good, or even satisfactory, method of critical analysis for modern games. We're still using the same criteria - gameplay, graphics, sound, blah blah blah - to review Braid and Wii Fit as we did to review Pac-Man and Donkey Kong.

Games have evolved beyond simply, "play these levels over and over to get the highest score," or even, "play these levels to get to the end in the fastest time/with the shortest loss of lives." The common methods of analysis, however, are still stuck in that rut.

What we really need is a reviewer - or perhaps even an entire website - run by people educated in critical analysis of other forms of media. Perhaps they could develop something better.

hey man go for it you won't be dissapointed..

I'm pretty sure 90% of people out there realized there was a major flaw in the review system after GTA4 was reviewed.

 Amen!  Not to beat a dead horse, but most disappointing game I've played in a LONG time.  How GTA4 gets all those 10s and Resistance 2, Gears 2, Mario Galaxy or something fresh and innovative like LBP has to settle for most ratings in the 9-ish level is beyond me.