I would add more points to this, but I don't have much time seeing how early it is.
The video gaming community is a very fast reacting one and loves changes sides/opinions. Look at 2k12. At first, it was the ideal game. Now people are complaining constantly. This is 2k's own problem that could be discussed with another overall topic(devs that release an incomplete/poorly tested game that could easily be better due to a deadline). It got a 9.5 from IGN or whatever.
Now I think that companies should wait until a month or so after of playing the game periodically each day, and have at least beaten some form of campaign or something. I realize this is not business smart as people want to hear about the game due to the hype factor. But its smart in the sense that in 5 years we won't look back and go "2k12 got a 9.5? LOL! That game is nothing compared to the best basketball game ever, NBA Live: Rebirth"
Most gaming reviews are centered around a reviewer really excited about the game who is looking for positive factors instead of negative. Thats why I don't ever really take their opinions to mean anything anymore.
I agree with you. Regardless, I still read reviews to get details about the game. If it seems like I might like it, then I'll give it a shot. For example, Dead Island got some ok to bad scores but I read enough details about it over quite a few reviews and I know that I'll like it. For me, reader reviews are more important.
nothing you said made sense. the point of reviews is to instruct consumers, that's why they receive review copies before the games come out. and numbers are only used as a summary, they all still want to actually read.
If you look at places like Gamerankings.com or Metacritic that average out many reviews, they're almost always spot on. If you get a big enough sample of people who basically play games for a living, it's generally a very good indicator of the quality of the game. I can't think of many games I've disagreed with the average consensus.
I generally look at this scores and a read a couple from sites I regularly visit like Gamespot and Gamesradar to get the details. NBA 2K12 did get some great overall scores but I passed on it because apparently the online multiplayer is worse than ever.
Reviews in general, movies and games particular, I usually look at like this:
If something is universally lauded, so scoring 9+ on the aggregate type websites like Metacritic, is almost certainly good and worth me checking out regardless of weather it's something that's in my wheelhouse or not. Then there are some elements that I'm just not into, like with gaming, online modes don't interest me much, so when a Modern Warfare scores 10/10 everywhere, I may borrow a copy to check it out, but I'm not gonna buy it because I know it's not being reviewed well for reasons I particularly care about. But it's still worth playing.
And stuff that scores 5 or lower, is almost certainly bad enough to avoid, again, even if it is in my wheelhouse, and features zombies or some other such thing that may make me want to buy it.
It's those 6-8s that require some looking into to decide if the flaws that are certainly there are something that will affect your experience. Or if it's content you're not into, it's probably not worth stomaching it just for an experience that's going to be meh.
You guys know that these guys get paid to write good reviews, and when they don't get their money they write bad reviews. Or they pay the company to let them have the first review. Plus the writers are journalists first, and crappy ones at that, not gamers.
first time play throughs with live commentary are the best reviews.