It was mentioned that the site has standards for reviews, and looking at a couple sets of reviews, I believe that. It seems that any review that has the air of bashing on the system, or that the opinion was decided beforehand, gets thrown out.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/wii/review/947068.html (reviews for The Conduit)

http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/wii/review/950974.html (reviews for DR:CTYD)

The reason I chose that game is because I looked on the Metacritic page for it, and while a lot of reviews were 60% or lower, virtually all of those were thinly veiled bashing on the game, not reviews, as well as excuses to bash the Wii*. Anything above that seemed to actually review the game.

The gamefaqs reviews are almost all about the games, not the Wii. It seems the site actually encourages a professional style of reviewing.

Now I know that the game reviewing community is loaded with fanboys (just not all). Metacritic should hold reviews to such standards.

* Don't believe me that those reviews of CTYD are wrong? One complained about the stance Frank had when running. While the stance is silly, he also did it in the original version. CTYD is supposed to compare unfavorably to both DR and RE4, and several mistakes like that make me think the reviewers didn't even actually pay attention to those games to compare them. You call that professional reviewing?

dead rising wii > the conduit confirmed.

If your need for reviews extends so far that you just want to read a bunch of random peoples opinions, GAMEfaqs is okay I guess. I tend, personally, to not put much stock in any reviews unless I'm familiar with the reviewer and their tastes; what they like and don't like and how harshly or objectively they tend to review games.

I trust gamefaqs when I read many reviews from the game. They put many points why some think it's bad and others say it's good. I look for the overall and them make my decision to buy or rent a game

That's not what I meant.

i read impressions at neogaf and gamefaqs before buying a game.