you can think that nobody should buy based on reviews, but then honestly, reviews altogether stop serving a practical purpose, score or no score.
then we are also left renting, which can be expensive itself, especially if you got a game that wasnt even worth renting, or buying to find out whats up, and losing out on resale.

reviews hopefully lessen your losses.

for me, money is serious business, and therefore reviews are serious business. whether they are written online or in print.

ps: i dont go by reviews because i always know what i like, and am picky about what i buy, but i can completely understand the use of reviews, and know people that dont have my time or internet savvy/time to keep up with the nuances of every game that looks interesting.

As for soliciting reviews from people you know and trust? This absolutely works, but if a person or entity becomes popular well known for being a trusted reviewer, it is only a matter of time before the establishment begins to court them. Is the only answer to maintaining credibility a complete rejection of corporate sponsorship? It’s easy to say YES, but can I ask a news entity to throw away the most powerful and viable way to pay for operating expenses? (granted, this argument is more traditional-news-focused, like newspapers, magazines and television).

Whatever you guys think of “professional review sites” (professional in that they review games in order to make a living), the wall between industry and observers is an important one and should be fought for. Our instinct as intelligent consumers is to dismiss both parties outright, but to do so invites further transgressions and ultimately a breaking down between critics and corporations. It is an uphill battle to increase (or even just maintain) the autonomy and authority of journalists, but it is vitally important that we fight for it.

After all, how long until the corporations dictate the tone/content of ALL the websites we visit?

It is easy to see why there is a disparity between the average critic rankings and the users’ rankings in most games: Professional critics come from a background of having played games all their lives, so they know when a new game is derivative or just a small improvement on an old formula, plus they tend to prefer tougher games that challenge their experience. Casual gamers, even those of us who have been gaming for ten years or so, have not experienced all these games, so we tend to find fascinating some games that improve on an old formula.

I think most critics are fair, but you must take into account that a game that might seem derivative for them could be the exact thing you are looking for as a relatively new gamer.

If Jeff is for sure let go, than I’m bummed. I shouldn’t care if he reviews something i like with a lower score – because I can retain my own opinion and realize that’s his separate opinion. The ownership that some people have over top-tear franchiss is nuts, and to the point where you’d wonder if the players feel they were part of the development of the game from the beginning. I’ll always be Mario fanboy and it pleases me to know the game has been reviewed highly, but whether it is or isn’t, or is sold or isn’t, it bears nothing to do with the end experience with the game in my with friends and family.

on CRITICAL OBJECTIVITY:
Gerstman has always been clear about the differences of the advertising on their site vs. the critical objectivity. He’s been an advocate for reviewers being honest and clear that if they play a game that’s sub-par, than they’ll review it that way. Maybe he was the only one brave enough to talk about that on his podcasts, but it’s a loss if that’s the reason he may be gone from the gamespot staff.

On Metacritic, I saw a review(later taken out) that gave the game a 1/10.

The reason? Easy, repetitive game.

I’m no reviewer, but a 1/10 usually depicts an unplayable game.