actually the z doesn't even matter to gamerankings, as they allow all sorts of crazy named website (Da Gameboyz for example). It was just theprof00's lame attempt to complain about nothing but make it look legit.

Well I hope not, VGCHARTZ 8.2 for Fallout 3 already destroyed the credibility of the VG reviews for a lot of gamers =p.

oh so like normal? :P

Yeah I hope we get on the rankings, not because I really support meta or gamerankings cause I think saying ____ game is better because of either is kinda lame and against what reviews are there for in the first place, but I want us on there so more people will see our awesome reviews ^_^

round of applause for the 3 guys who took a joke seriously.

I expected it to pwn someone like maxwell, but 2 mods?!?

If you guys can't tell a joke, then maybe I should be bribing nordlead every month.

It's a joke because people actually do complain about the z affecting professionalism. That's funny to me. It's also a requirement that a site maintain professionalis and while vgc is probably one of the most professional sites I've ever been to, these detractors present a seeming paradox. I guess you just took me seriously is all. In that regard, Ill give loaded statement a free pass since he doesn't know me, and I'll give maxwell a free pass because well, ever since the accident, he just.... you know. But nordlead, if it wasn't for the fact that you are a staunch hardline conservative I would have already lost faith in you.

The site needs more reviewing staff so that the site can review all upcoming games. Its not very useful reviewing some old game now, it would be better for the site to just review every game as soon as its out or before (if the site could get a copy early). I mean you never see IGN etc reviewing year old games, and I think this step would help alot with getting into metacritic.

Doing old game reviews would still be a good option to get us past the 300 mark, but after that the site should focus on new releases IMO

the only thing I am concerned about is that we keep unbiased people reviewing our games. If we introduce too many faces in our attempt to secure the review quota, we might compromise integrity. I say we should just wait patiently.

Oh my god, would you stop? Your joke wasn't funny and none of us really care what you think about us. All of the complaints so far in this thread about the review system have been ridiculous at best. People always complain that Metacritic just allows any old site to be on there, but then Vgchartz isn't good enough to be on Metacritic despite a great staff and a steady output of reviews?

But i don't think thats really a big concern, cause really there is no such thing as an unbiased reviewer.  Everybody has at least a small amount of bias whether they admit it or not.

@yo_john

We should, if we could, stay at least nearest the side of the spectrum labeled "unbiased".

In the situation I described, I was cautioning what might happen if too many people ended up being reviewers. Case in point, I know for a fact that there are people here who play both sides of the argument with multiple profiles. For example, an overt xbox detractor who also has a profile in which he stealthly trolls the system.
For the most part, those sites know who their reviewers are and have a relationship with them. I'm not saying we are biased or lack credibility, I'm saying "let's make sure we maintain our credibility and stay our course."

Yeah everyone is biased, people who always declare on forums they are not biased are most of the time the most biased persons :).