How reliable are video game review sites.

[Mo-Nercy]

I have a friend that absolutely worships review sites. He's always telling me what's the best buy before the game even comes out. I try not to let him influence my judgement because I go by the 'try-before-you-buy' policy and so I'm a big renter and demo player.

[Slothy]

Secondly, most of them don't play the whole game. They likely play for a short time to get an impression. When YOU buy it, you'll be playing for 40 hours, probably more. So the impression of a reviewer after 2 hours, probably isn't going to be the same as the view of a average player after 20 hours.

How do you know that out of curiosity? Most of the sites/mags I read do actually play through all or most of a game when they review it. For example in OPM's review of San Andreas, the reviewer stated he played in the 40 hour range but didn't beat it. If he's not qualified to give an opinion on the game as a whole though, then hell, neither am I. When you consider most games aren't 40 hours long, and that there are usually so many editors on staff that they don't need each to review too many games, I see no reason to believe they aren't playing through most of the game. If anything, I've noticed in the past that some mags usually have fewer reviews from the editor who had to review the 40 hour RPG that month, than from the other editors.

Finally, game reviewers review a lot of games. Tons of games. They've seen the same type of gameplay over and over hundreds of times -- before they start the one they're reviewing. So they're nit picky. They'll notice things that most gamers won't.

I play a lot of games. I've seen the same gameplay over and over hundreds of times, but a great game is still a great game. Yeah they may nit pick sometimes, but so do I. A lot of places (at least the ones I read) aren't very quick to hold the little things against an otherwise spectacular game.

[Raistlin]

I absolutely never read reviews to try and figure out whether I should get a game or not. I'll read reviews sometimes for my own entertainment, though. I simply use my friends to figure out what games I should get.

[KentaRawr!]

Well, I personally think that fan-made reviews are usually kinda biased. I know that all reviews have to be biased in some way, but alot of times they seem to be more about telling people how much they liked the game rather than telling them about the game. I usually go to Gamefaqs to see the common score a game gets, and then I go to IGN or some other place to get info on the game. o.o

So, my answer is: Fan-Made Review sites are for seeing how many people enjoyed it, and official video-game info/review sites are better for getting info.

[darkchrono]

Yeah, fan-made reviews tend to be along these lines. 'If what I was wanting to see in the game was actually in the game the game is awesome'...... or...... 'If what I was wanting to see in the game was not in the game than the game sucks'

I think the professional reviews are a better indication of what the overall population may enjoy. Where as fan reviews are an indication of what one or two people may enjoy.