They do? I've always seen mostly positive reviews about it, or heard good things about it. I remember a lot of people being disappointed that Sonic CD wasn't available in the Sonic Mega Collection for the gamecube. Y es there are occasionally people that dislike it, but it never seemed the norm for me,

Never finished Too Human but I LOVE the gameplay...simple as it is. All the tech-mythos blending really made for a great experience.

-----------------
As for me, I LOVED Daikatana.....from the plot(simple as it is), to the worlds/time periods, to the funny banter between the equally goofy(yet[mostly]lovable) characters. If not for the bad PR campaign on that one and some better marketing(and maybe a tad more bug fix time) I think it could have easily made for an awesome ongoing series.

It had the looks(graphically) of Heretic 2/Unreal, and some similar mechanics iirc, which made it stand out to me all the more, being fans of aforementioned games and all.

Oh, I know it's a fact, it's just disappointing. I much prefer to use the full width of the scale, because why bother having a broad scale in the first place if you only use 40% of it.

For me it would be Duke Nukem Forever. I liked that game quite a bit and can't see most of the arguments the critics make besides the console port's technical issues and how linear it is. I see them insist that Duke Nukem 3D was the better game when both are the same thing, clones of other popular shooters at the time with the Duke paint on it that are less than stellar technological wise.

If they did they deserve to have their heads checked, imo.
--------------------------------------
And what's wrong with that? With more voices comes more garbage to sift through, but also more POVs on things we may or may not like and/or want to try for ourselves. I happen to think that's a good thing.

As for standards, I don't think there needs to be one. I think people need to use common sense and determine which reviewers meet their needs and/or don't practice things you dislike which may affect their reviews(being paid off, using gimmicks to review and not their honest views, etc.) & that one should take from the reviewers that DO make the cut a sampling of viewpoints to make one's decision with....along with other methods(listed above) of course. Only a fool would trust just one review source or method of verifying something's usefulness to them, right?

By doing what I listed here and above, one can easily pick "honest" reviewers that will help them to pick things they may like with greater accuracy and less frustration....so YES, there IS a way of telling if you'll like a product or not, if you do it right and don't just do a tiny bit of research into something and then leap in without doing more or being more wise.
---------------------------------------------
I agree that reviewers being bought off is crap, but as I said before there ARE some reviewers who are more honest/not paid shills who you can draw POVs from(among other sources/methods)before buying something.
-------------------------------------------------
Who cares if some consider games inferior because of some lousy score that the game may or may not have deserved, or if a game is unfairly(In your eyes) high or low rated as long as you enjoy the game and play it or don't enjoy it and skip it?

Because I cannot be bothered. Websites change reviewers like underwear, I have no interest in keeping up to date with the names of specific reviewers, etc. I simply want to sit down and read an article with certain expectations, just like I have certain expectations for newspapers / magazines that I read. When I read my favourite magazine, I might not agree with what they say, but I know what I'm getting into (and ultimately my wallet is likely to be safe). I don't need to check for the name of the specific author, etc.

The developers and publishers. Poor reviews negatively affect sales.

So basically you're lazy and self-centered? Is that it?

That reminds me of all the people that want new laws/etc enacted all the time in the US because they can't raise their kids themselves and want someone else to do it for them.
--------------------------------------------------
Crap games and good games will still be produced regardless.

You didn't get my point, but that doesn't surprise me one bit. Peace, I'm out.

(An unfounded remark and a veiled slap in the face......nice.)

And I did get you, regardless of what you say. You seem to want things to be easier so you don't have to do the research yourself(which any smart consumer should do).

I admitted the system has flaws, but that with diligence it can be made to work quite nicely for those interested in the products/services/media critiqued(when used along with other methods.). Some bits of the system could use fixing(bribing of reviewers/etc) but for the most part the system works.

Prince of Persia Warrior Within.
It got a bad rating because it stopped to fall under Oriental stereotypes. I remember how the NY-times were butthurt about it.

No one really went into the innovative combat system or the improved plattforming...

I remember being pretty pissed about the 7.0 of Vietcong on IGN. In fact, the reviewer and I had a bit of a back and forth. I don't remember the specifics of what was said, but I do remember him patronizing me (because he's the paid reviewer). That pissed me off and I haven't been back. And they're still a horrible joke of a site. The game's not perfect, but other games that were getting better reviews then may have looked better, but they weren't nearly as fun.

Anyway, as far as reviewing goes, it suffers from the same thing that every facet of life suffers because of the internet, from politics to pet care: everyone is an expert and it's too easy to believe what they say because they "publish." Shit, half the time they're not even relevant. Not really. I've stopped paying attention to aggregate game review sites and pick a few reviewers I like. (I'm partial to Giantbomb.com. Those guys seem to know their business.)

There's also the issue of the score not matching the text. I have half a mind to dumb down the scores to like or dislike and leave it at that (like movies). I think Rottentomatoes does a good job of getting the general feel of a review and gives it a tomato or a splat. Want to know more? Want a more nuanced opinion? Read the review. (Yes, I know games are $60 and not $15--but if you're that reliant on the reviewer to know how to spend your cash you should be reading the whole text anyway.)

tl;dr: Vietcong stands out. And, as stated, pick a few reviewers you trust and stick with them. And for godsakes, get away from a 100 or even 10 point scale. 5 stars is fine.

Has somebody already mentioned Alpha Protocoll?

Duke Nukem Forever. The game is nothing spectacular but nowhere deserved 3.0 / 10 score.

Well, I quite liked -

Alpha protocol
Duke Nukem Forever
Daikatana
Fallout New Vegas and Original War.

"Crickets" didn't like it

I think people have a strange idea of panned. A lot of these games are on the 6 or 7 review score range. I'd say there's a bigger problem with how much gamers demand absurd scores for the games they like than with reviewers. A 7 review is not a bad game folks.