You realize there's more than one of us. Right?

Here's a game rated higher than halo 3:
http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=973

Seriously, we need quality control for some of these reviews, that one is basically just an advertisement!

For arguably the millionth time (as people seems unable to use the search function) a review is not like a school paper. A 9.5 game is not 4% 'better' than a 9.1 game. We judge a game relative to everything else on its platform, and other systems don't even factor in.

Beyond that, I'm not explaining it yet again. If you don't like our reviews, don't read them.

I see reviews purely as opinions. Yes, they can state that something in the game/movie/book wasn't well put together, below par with the rest of the movie, but as I see it, these things are only the means to an end. And the end is to give a qualified opinion on the subject.

But I also agree that the system used for reviewing games still has a ways to go before it can play with the big boys, but the problem with "value" in gaming terms, is that it is so diverse. I need a good SP before I can justify buying a game. In fact, most of the time, I wont care about the MP. But if I find a game for cheap, and I know it will be fun to play MP, then I might get enough value for my money, for me to buy it.

good job picking a review from before VGChartz standardized the review system.

Oh I know, I could write an article on it but that would take up too much space.  But there is no doubt that, out of Music, Film, Literature and Games it is game reviews that are by far and away the most inconsistent and open to interpretation, even allowing for new titles/approaches which can challenge accepted norms making them hard to review in the first place (just look at the first reviews for 2001, and compare its structure to the then (and even today) accepted norm for a film - in a sense for many reviewers it was in a sense impossible for them to review because they were trying to use a set of metrics and expectations that just didn't fit.

But my question wasn't about a single standard, but the fact of certain standards and the value of a review vs its just an opinion.

In the end reviews exist, or at least one of their primary reasons for existing, is to allow you to leverage the supposed knowledge of someone else to help you make choices where there are too many potentially available - i.e the reviewer isn't just another opinion, but someone with a great deal of knowledge and understanding of the medium, be that Art, Film, whatever.

With games that's clearly one of the main goals - but I feel that often game reviews are so biased to the reviewers own thoughts vs any form of standard (would you even credit a game reviewer as having better knowledge than you of videogames) that they are in danger of becoming useless.

Put it another way, while I don't always agree with them there are many film, music and literature reviews I value, whereas I really couldn't say the same for any videogame source.

Yes sir.

On the other hand, you do realize that my criticism isn't directed toward any reviewer here, right?

What sethnintendo said. One of my personal favourite games ever, Gauntlet Legends for the N64, is at a 71% on Gamerankings. And you know what? I don't 'give a hoot'.

...I agree that video game criticism has a long, long, long way to go.

You do what you can, though. You write reviews that fit within the needs for the channel you write for while expanding on what that might mean. Just write good reviews.

Actually, given this conversation, you might want to consider applying for a position yourself, if you have the time to review two games a month.

Just because it came before doesn't mean it should remain :-/