For me it really depends of the franchise itself. Some franchises of games (Like "Final Fantasy", "Jak & Daxter", "Gran Turismo", "Pro Evolution Soccer" and "Mortal Kombat") i KNOW are going to be worth buying because of past experiences i've had with those franchises, so i don't care what kind of reviews those games get, i'll still go out and get them.

However if it's a completely new IP or the latest installment of a franchise i'm not fmiliar with then i WILL look on Metacritic and make my decisions from there. I would never base my decision to purchase a game on just ONE review, but if a game got reviewed by 40 different people and not a single person gave it higher than a 6/10 i would think to myself there MUST be something wrong.

I agree on the part that, as gamers, our standards are far too high though. I would look at a game that got a 7.5 on Metacritic and think of it as a complete flop. The problem is, there are a lot of REALLY good games out there, to the point where we've become accustomed to playing a game with a Metacritic rating in the high 80's - mid 90's. It doesn't leave much room, or even thought, for the little guys.

These reviewers are either biased or take games for granted!
I still don't understand why a great game cannot get a 10/10. Because technologies evolves and developers bring in new functions and innovative features in a game, these reviewers always want more. They want a game to be completely perfect so they can rate it a 10/10. Sorry, but nothing can never be perfect in life.

Back in the days you see all those great games getting a 10/10 and game of the year, they lack multiplayer, lasting appeal, graphics and game play and yet they still get a 10/10. Because of todays tech in standards, reviewers always down-rate a game if it doesn't contain one of those following features (graphics, lasting appeal etc).

Take Halo Combat Evolve for an example, great music, gameplay, graphics, lasting appeal (multiplayer) and story. It got a 10/10 and take Halo 3 as the second comparison and look at its score which is a 9/10. I have no idea why it doesn't get a 10/10, sure the gameplay may not be as bad ass as Halo 1. But it had an awesome graphics, 10x better lasting appeal, music were great and story was engaging. Everything in Halo 3 was 10x better than Halo 1 except the game play. So why doesn't this game deserve a 10/10 from reviewers?
They want something more, I don't know what they want.

Any game that is considered to be awesome, great graphics, lasting appeal and less glitch will be a 10/10 for me. Take Gears of War 2 for instance, it is 20x way better than GOW1! I had been commenting on people's blog saying this game deserves a 10/10!
Spending more time with the multiplayer which was totally frustrating; I had played so many different games with my NAT: Strict settings in which I manage to still have a great game online all these time. However GOW2 is not accepted, people have been complaining they had to wait up to 20min just to successfully connect to a game. I too had to wait a long time, but I really can't bare waiting 20min just for an online game:/
I later changed my NAT:Strict to NAT:Open. Yes I had to wait lesser than Strict, but when finally connectied, the game either lags badly or I get disconnected out of no where:/

Yet I still vote for a 10/10, why? Because games can never be perfect, and I know that Epic would release a patch for this problem. But if the patch doesn't fixes anything, then I'm afraid I'll have to give this game an 8/10. Why 8? because people with Strict setting won't even be able to play online!



I seriously feel sorry for the developers of Need for Speed Undercover:/ it had a bad review. I mean, I wasn't into those games, Underground 2 was my favourite. The graphics for this game looks incredible though.

fsg, it depends on who you are targeting. If you are making a casual game, then reviews hold absolutely no weight, it is 100% advertising. But when you get to the more traditional gamer (I don't say hardcore because being a hardcore gamer means having all consoles and buying unappreciated games like Ico and Psychonauts)then reviews matter more, look at Too Human and Haze, they didn't sell well because of negative press.

But I think people forget that reviews are ONLY opinions, when you start adding scientific numeric scores like 9.7s and all people start seeing reviews as a science rather than an opinion. That is why people get angry when a game gets a low review but they like it when they play it, they think the review was meant to be scientific fact which infuriates them as they think the reviewer was lying.

This isn't about lowering standards though Swaby, it is about making your own decisions based on information rather than opinion of some reviewers. Find out how the game plays and what modes it has, the whole concept of the game, watch some gameplay videos and if it is available, download a demo. If these reviewers are as great as everyone sees them as, wouldn't they be people who used to be in the industry offering there critique rather than people wanting to get IN the industry? At least former designers would have a better idea what they are talking about.

"hold a lot of weight in the gaming industry, and whatever score a game gets can effect whether a consumer buys a game or not. "

ABSOLUTELLY NOT TRUE gaming reviews have NO weight. ADVERTISING is a KEY. EVERY branch of industry knows that WHY games should be difrentfs

I don't put much weight into online or magazine reviews. In fact, the magazine Edge I usually look at their reviews and figure the opposite. They just gave Resistance 2 a 6. What a joke. I know which games I want no matter what. If I'm not sure I'll wait and see what real gamers think.

As for Uncharted, it's a great game. I finally got an HDTV and since it got trophy support I'm starting over playing it. I still haven't seen many games that look as good as Uncharted and it has great gameplay.