it all started with the whole " AAA" definition for a game as being over 90 on meta or game ranking. I remember Nintendo fans going crazy when GTA4 briefly passed it.

A review is an opinion, there will be bias no matter what.

I am surprised no one has brought the biggest problem with reviews these days:  NO ONE READS THEM EXCEPT A FEW.

People look at the score or the video review, that's it.

It's really not that much different from the grading system in schools though. Anything less than a 70 in school is absolutely terrible.

anything less than a 93 is terrible :-/

did you see the reaction after gametrailers gave Uncharted a 93 or IGN gave MWF a 70, it was like a personal attack on the reviewer.

Reviewing a game and a School grade is different. When you are learning something, in order for you to be at least proficient, you must know more than half of what you learned, 70% is a good measurement of that. In any recreational media, a score tells you how good something compares on a scale of 1-10, preferably. Even then, I've enjoyed many games that have gotten 70> so it really isn't saying much.

Some other things I have trouble with reviewers:

1. They pentalize a game for what it isn't. Not having online isn't a negative feature of a game. It is just not going above and beyond, and I'm sure anybody reading the review knows enough about the game to know the basic features it will and will not have. Also if you are going to pentalize a game for some things it doesn't have, and not for others that makes very little sense.

2. Their score is rarely a good summary of the review itself. So many reviews I read where the reviewer didn't come up with more than two minimal flaws and then give the game a 7, on this rudimentary scale let me note. If you think it deserves that score, explain it.

3 This really isn't a problem with reviewers, but gamers take their word as final. This is something that really bothers me. Just because they are getting paid for their opinion, doesn't mean they are more qualified than a regular person at determining the quality of the game, which is subjective and will never be finalized.

Thank you for posting this.
Recent reviews of "The Conduit" and now "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Reflex" are really irritating me. I do not care if the reviewer does not like the game, but at least get the facts correct. Many reviews of both games cannot even get their facts straight before writing the reviews.

There is no problems with reviews for the most part.

The problem comes from the people reading the reviews. If everyone could understand that reviews are ultimately opinions and that the difference between an 8.9 and a 9.0 is negligible then all the whining about the review system would stop.

As much as people on this site like to complain about reviews 99.9% of the time looking at the aggregated reviews of games on metacritic or game rankings does give you a very good idea of what to expect of the game your purchasing.

Solution: Reviewers stop scoring games.

It means that users will actually have to read the review rather than going 'This gmae onle got a 93, that mens its sucks next to thsi gam wich got 96!1!'.

What about we take reviews to actually what it is, an opinion. The problem is fans are using the scores as penis measuring contest, as if it means something. It would be insane not to buy a game you like because of a review.