How much emphasis do you put on game reviews?

[saturnfan]

When I was younger I was a huge Sega fan boy/Sony hater, now not so much, but I remember taking online and magazine reviews VERY seriously. For example if a Dreamcast game got below an 8.5 I would have been sad (even if I had no prior interest in it), while at the same time if an up and coming PS2 got a terrible review I would generally celebrate.

Also I would seriously consider not buying a game I was anticipating if it scored below a 9 and take it off my want list completely if it fell into the 7s or below. Obviously as I got older I relaxed this harsh system a bit, but for the most part would avoid any game that received below a 7.

When I think back I probably missed out on a lot great underrated games and picked up several "critically acclaimed" games that really have had little to no staying power with me. Now that I have wised up a bit I have realized that most professional reviewers are attempting to score a game based on how it will be received by the public at large. While there is some merit in doing that, I sometimes find myself disagreeing with these professional reviewers.

Here is a short list of some games released in the past several years I have really liked that have gotten lukewarm reviews. (average score data is taken from gamespot.com's critic averages).

Breakdown - 7.4
Record of Agarest War - 7.1
Mana Khemia - 7.1
Mana Khemia 2 - 7.2
Bullet Witch - 5.7
Ar tonelico - 7.3
Raiden III - 5.6


Now these games probably deserve these average scores, especially Bullet Witch, but I fell like I got an "above average" gaming experience out of them. I probably have other better examples, but those specific games popped into my head first. Breakdown and Mana Khemia 2 are especially favorites of mine that I would recommend to anyone who hasn't played them.

[Pulsar_t]

Reviews are biased by definition, so it's impossible to judge the merits of a game based on objective criteria. Game reviewers (the terms journalist/critic needn't apply) are usually afraid to use the full scale so an average game like Mafia II would typically get a 7/10 from the more self-respecting reviewers, ie two points more than the average 5/10. OTOH Eurogamer almost got it right by giving it 4/10. Anyone awarding it +9/10 on a commercial website is either certifiable or blatantly paid to do so. These bribed scores skew review numbers upwards even more.

It's all hits-and-misses, but Metascoring is an adequate initial indication of a game's quality. Thankfully with video reviews you get to witness the game in motion, and with the advent of the likes of Onlive and Gaikai demos should become reasonable again.

[ZeroAX]

I don't trust any reviewers. I watch the gametrailer reviews only because they have lots of gameplay footage.

I get my game opinions from forum members. If I see a member of the forum having the same taste as me in games, I keep that in mind, and when a new game comes out I read what he has to say about it on the forum, and try it out if he likes it a lot.

Has worked wonders for me so far. I'm in a PS3 forum and there are 3-4 members that have the EXACT same taste as I do.

[jfrost]

I think one of the problems is that games are not divided by genre. An extreme example are shmups. If you went to any of the big websites reviewing DeathSmiles, you would read garbage about it being a $50 dollar game that provides 1 hour of fun. You'd have to go to shmups.com or elsewhere to get a respectable opinion.

[slowslow325]

Don't ever pay attention to the score, pay attention to the points made, decide for yourself.

[prfsnl_gmr]

I miss EGM's old reviews. I think modern games are too long for anyone to review like EGM did in the late '80s and early '90s, but having four reviewers give a game an independent score on a 1 - 10 scale gave you a good idea as to the quality of a game.

Today, I aggregate scores from several different sites to get an idea as to whether a game is worth my time. (For new releases, I usually check IGN, 1up, Joystiq, etc....I don't trust Gamespot since they fired someone for giving a mediocre review to Kane & Lynch. EGM would never have done that. For older games, I aggregate user reviews on GameFAQs.)

[yomomma1]

I wouldn't say Reviews are biased by definition. Bias and opinion, not the same thing.

[J T]

I like game reviews, but the final ranking only moderately affects my buying decision. The things that most affect my decision are whether the game is inexpensive or if the game takes chances. I have literally played thousands of videogames. Because of this, my preference for games has now shifted more towards finding games that do something a bit different, rather than say, create the perfect game. I still like when a game works as a whole, naturally, but I can enjoy a game that doesn't quite nail it as long as it has some interesting and novel ideas. I'm interested in gaming history and how games are designed. I'm interested in gameplay mechanics and how they enhance storytelling. I'm interested in how genres get created and evolve. For me, it's not strictly about the game being just fun, it's also about how the game contributes to the history of videogaming. It might bring a new gameplay mechanic, a new setting, a new way of interacting with non-playable characters, or a unique AI idea. So, I do pay attention to review numbers, but I'm mostly interested if the reviewer recognizes something unique about the game that sets it apart from the crowd.

[Flake]

I can't think of any instance where a review affected my decision to buy a game. Typically I've made my mind up long before the game hits stores.

That said, the other day I was at Gamestop and picked up a title I saw on the used Wii shelf and popped it down on the counter. The clerk looked at me and said 'Sir, I try not to meddle in the affairs of others but I don't think I can sell you that game and feel good about myself'.

THAT was a review that affected my buying habits.

I prefer reviews that tell me what kind of money I should spend on a game, not if the game is good/bad.

[Hobie-wan]

And thus is the problem with numbered reviews and their perception. A score of 75% if lukewarm? That should still be a 'good' game. A 90% should be an 'excellent' game. 50% should be average. 30% should be a 'lukewarm' game. Plus reviews are going to be skewed by the type of games you like. I don't care for platformers so things like classic Mario or Sonic games would get 50% or less from me if I were to try to assign a score to them.

I prefer reviews that talk about what the game does and doesn't do and perhaps talk about whether it looks or sounds good and whethe rthe controls do what you expect them to do. But of course it all has to be taken with a grain of salt. I think that's one reason I like CGR reviews so much. He shows you a lot of footage and talks more about the feel of a game and points out where he found enjoyment.