The point of my previous was not that you were referring to one reviewer, it is that you were referring to a review "system" as if this somehow manages to encompass the tendencies of every reviewer. That's ludicrous.

bring it up to naz/benga/dkii, as one of them (can never remember) is in charge of reviews. They don't have time to go through the old reviews from before a standard was set, but if you bring it up it would probably be corrected.

Me, and I'm not sure what to do yet about the old reviews. I've been considering some revision. Would have been easier if it had been done when we switched systems though.

If you dislike the reviews here just go to another biased site who agree with what you like.

Hell I didn't like this site review on Mario Kart Wii (8.7 WTF?) but that didn't make me start at thread on how "anti" Nintendo this site is, wich it isnt nor is it "anti" PS360.

Well let's just think of it this way: If a forum poster brings this up now (me), think about how much worse it could be in the future when VGChartz reviews are looked upon more. Even (for a desperate lack of a better word) credible.

Just saying it could come back to bite ya in the future

I did consider it, but sadly work (i.e. real life) would prevent me from being a suitably reliable provider of content, and I felt it was unfair to apply vs those who would make/give the time needed.

I actually think many of the reviews on the site, as written, as very good and actually better than many 'official' reviews.  It's the score system, as ever, that goes awry, as it tries to condense so much to a simple number.

I would make a suggestion though - for each major genre get the review team to a agree a top title, then use the score for that title as a standard comparison point - i.e. write your review, then consider that title X is our control and has 9.4 out of 10 and score the title comparitively to that (obviously comparing like for like titles).  I actually kind of hate the idea of genres, but in truth they do help and most people do seem to think that way, and in videogames in particular it seems fair to consider how FPS A compares to FPS B.

The most common complaint with reviews after all is how come game X managed to score less than game Y (particularly if they are in the same genre and sometimes not).

I think you're missing my point, Khuutra.

I like the reviewer here. So much so, that I often ask through PM about certain games and it even impacts my purchase. My criticsims has nothing at all -- not a single thing -- to do with the people reviewing these games. I'm speaking out purely on how the scores for games are determined and how the sytem clearly favors Japanese genres. Even if I were reviewing games, I could think of many games that I thought deserved 9/10 that actually end up in the mid 80% range. This is because of how the scores are dictated.

To sum it up: The text part of the reviews are fine, it's the scoring system that needs work.

That could well be. But people that moan about reviews simply because they disagree, like coolestguy, simply don't understand what a review should be about.

Reviews are a (hopefully well funded and I think VGC does that very well) opinion with a score attached to it. Some people think their opinion about a game should be shared by everyone, especially by press, but this is obviously nonsense.

Machina's Fallout review is often cited as a bad review, but it isn't. He has issues with the game and, most importantly, he wrote down what those issues were. If you don't agree that's fine,but I'm sure there are people that like the fact that a reviewer notes these flaws.

Unfortunately there will always be people that like to bitch about anyting, but I tend to think most people like our reviews, at least as a feature of the site, and as VGC continues to grow people will have to accept that they're there.

When considering a game, I read reviews from three different sources (IGN, Gamespot, and VGChartz) I think they all do an excellent job, each giving a different view point of the same game which is nice.