Another example is ODST. IGN UK reviewed it at 86. They said the reason was price. Was it worth a full retail game. Now what cofuses me is this. In the UK new 360 games retail at either £44.99 or £49.99. Ps3 games retail at £54.99 or £59.99.

Halo 3 ODST released new at £34.99. Now that is £15 cheaper than most new 360 retail games. Yet they assume it would be £49.99. Does that mean they would now give it 95 for example?????

But even then they use the old system. What about reviewing games based on fun and enjoyment. A game could have 100 glitches, and score less than a game with 2 glitches for that reason. Even if the game with 100 glitches was far more enjoyable.

Problem is 95% of people wont read a review. Thats life. Look at adverts or the front of a game box. Plastered there you will see 9/10 IGN. Or 5/5 Official **** Magazine. That believe it or not sells games. A few exceptions are Gran Turismo, Halo etc. Very few games have a pedigree where noone cares for the review because they know they will love the game.

Precisely because there is so much review bias is why those more accurate metacritic scores are needed.

We can't buy every game, and those that have the money dont have time to play every game. Even more, we don't have time to read every detailed review. And also we need honest gamers feedback!!!! So in the end it's in both gamers and industry interest to have a more reliable source for scores.  

WTF, why am I being told that it's life >.< Why can't it be life that if you guys want something, you guys should at least attempt to attain it by your own means than try to make something already simple even more simple?

I mean, what do you want reviewers to do? >.< Spoon feed you reviews? I mean, you have a general score to CATCH your attention, but then you guys HAVE to read the review. There's no way to really condense the actual review itself. I mean, you might be able to bullet point the reasons, but that'll make almost every game indistinguishable because the points will be general instead of in depth. (e.g. The game is repetitive. But how?)

Guys you HAVE to read the review, THAT'S life.

It's not the reviewing system that needs to change. It's the gamers.

Why does it matter what score a game gets? Should it really alter your opinion? All Game Reviews are , are well thought out opinions from people that play a lot of video games.

The problem with attacking video game reviews is it revolves so heavily around personal bias. Review scores have become fanboy vitriol. The game scores too high ,and all of a sudden the reviewers are paid off fanboys. The game scores too low, and all of a sudden the reviewers don't know what they are talking about. The game scores a 80 metacritic rating, and people are labeling it as "terrible".

Nobody is telling you, the consumer, to hang on Hilary Goldstein's from IGN's words as he talks about a certain game. You should be intelligent enough as a human being to decipher your own opinion from another's.

We as gamers need to treat video game reviews the same way movie goers treat film reviews. Yes, they are insightful. No, they are not the end all to what we do with our money.

The only reason why this is even a discussion, is the release of ODST and Uncharted 2. And I think that nails the problem more than anything I can say.

I don't think that the score matters, but reviews themselves do matter. I'm a consumer, I have limited ammount of money, and I have bunch of choices. The smart thing for me to do would for me to get as much information as I can. Reviews are a huge source of that.

Unfortunately (and this again, isn't against the SCORES, but the reviews themselves) some reviewers do just skim over stuff, like in Farcry 2, and don't say the most common sense thing, the big problems and flaws of the game we would notice at once.

The reviewers didn't mention or at least EMPATHIZE the woncky aiming. They didn't EMPATHIZE how fucking tedious and annoying the travel system is (which completely kills the game).

If reviewers don't just cut to the chase and stop thinking about how great Farcry 2 is for its freedom, its multiple ways of completing situations, and anyother bullshit like that one Farcry 2 gamer said on Youtube, and talk about stuff that's relevant to us gamers. I can give a shit about how there's an ecosystem and animals and shit in the game. If I can't even shoot properly, in a fucking FPS, then the game's severely handicapped.

reviews will never be fair since most reviewers don't buy those games - if they would they would rate games different. we are the ones that will play those games for 30+ hours and we are the ones who will pay for them 60$ - reviewers have those games for free and for couple of hours.
say what you want but i wouldn't get Heavenly Sword or any other game for 60$ even if it would get all 10/10 when it's 6-7 hour long and have little to no replay value.
to me there should always be another score for games besides quality of the game - is it worth your money? the best example are noobtoob reviews were there is only couple "Thumbs Up Buy" recomendations a year and they review console, handheld and pc games every week. most of them are "Thumbs Up Rental" which is pretty good indicator how many games are not worth your money.

Well some reviewers do try to play a game until it kills them with boredom, and some do say if this game is a rent or a buy, but I think you're right, even if they do try, they fall flat.

Perhaps that's just reality? In order to make a truly informed purchase, we can only do so after a certain ammount of time after launch? And via player reviews (since few "official" reviewers review games after launch, like VGCz).

It's a really, really bad idea to rate games against other, similar games. Games should be reviewed in a vacuum, free of hype and of competitors. Why should "any number of PS360 shooters would be better," factor into a review for The Conduit, or "just go buy Uncharted!" creep into a review for a Tomb Raider?