Do Reviews really F up a game???

Im about tired of people sayin there not going to get for example shadowrun because of the bad rep.  I love the game i think it might be one of the best games released. But so many people arent even giving it a try because someone played the game for 10 mins and wrote a review of it...So this is to everyone if you see a game and you think you might like a game...at least rent it and give it a shot instead of going on what other people say..e2116

When you own fast expensive sports cars already forza just seems... well boring, but its more of a long term investment, I will plat it of and on for the entire life of the 360.

Reviews turn off alot of potential buyers.

I am one of them, I was on the fence about Shadowrun so I waited for a review to reinforce my decision. The review has made me decide the game is not worth buying, I will check out the demo to see if it convinces me otherwise.

It shouldn't matter much whether people buy Shadowrun or not all that should matter is that your enjoying it.

Read the review, read the counter strike review they are both the same only different scores. I no longer trust game scores I haven't played Shadowrun but my friend assures me its great however when we went to pick up some copies they had none in stock.
If there were two reviews I could change on Gamespot it would be Dead Rising to AAA status and Saints Rowto AAA status too.martin_f

How much did CS cost? it was free for me.

I don't think they do. If a game interests you before launch then It's worth checking out. The reviews are just there to tell you It's strong points and where It needs to pick up for a more successful second game. The only way a game does well is by word from others and not by one individuals review of a game.

Yah they do, you get retards like this guy

http://www.gamespot.com/users/K1LLSWITCH/

that base there opinion on a game review, silly noobs

They have to play the game for at least 10 hours...with this type anyway (games like Oblivion would require much more time).

You need to realize that reviews aren't about how much "fun" the game is, but whether or not it's worth your hard-earned dollar. And with Shadowrun have a severe lack of content, it would be hard for any reviewer to justify you spending your money. 

Reviews are there to help the consumer make an informed decision before they drop $60 on a game. No more, no less. 

What I don't understand is why I should trust your opinion over all the game critics in North America. I mean, isn't your whole point that people should just buy every game that comes out sight unseen? Thanks, but no. You feel free to have fun with that concept, and enjoy all those Mary-Kate and Ashley games, cause you KNOW the reviewers are full of it and are just haters. 

Shadowrun is average at best, just because we gamers are desperte for something new doesn't mean we need to eat **** sandwiches and claim they tatse like cavier. 

i've given up trying to convince SR is best game of 2007. o well, more for me.iloverikku11

They have to play the game for at least 10 hours...with this type anyway (games like Oblivion would require much more time).

You need to realize that reviews aren't about how much "fun" the game is, but whether or not it's worth your hard-earned dollar. And with Shadowrun have a severe lack of content, it would be hard for any reviewer to justify you spending your money. 

fore_runner

Yep, I was going to say something to this effect. They measure its technical attributes... since they can't measure how much fun someone will have with it.

Personally I just leave it for a couple of weeks after the games released then look around on the boards for that particular game (aswell as the 'You Say' score here on GS but usually only if it's been around for awhile, let more people vote and first impressions wear off).

I still read the reviews but I'd rather listen to what other players think, rather than reviewers who tend to look at the games without taking into consideration the 'fun factor'. But then that's their job so you can't really blame them. They're paid to be objective and present the facts.

If Shadowrun had been released as a budget title, say at $30 or $40, the score would have risen a tad, and rightfully so.  I've posted the following in another thread already, but it applies here fairly well.

I'd prefer that reviewers err on the side of negativity.  I think a reviewer should do his or her best to expose EVERY SINGLE flaw of ANY game.  As a consumer, I want to know about any possible downside to my purchase, no matter how trivial.  I'd rather rent a game and find out it's better than a reviewer thought than BUY a game that was lauded and discover a slew of problems that make me hate it.

You want cheerleaders for a game?  Go to the game's website.  Think of a score not as an advertisement to encourage your purchase, but as a warning of what might not be as advertised.

Reviewers are the warning signs of entertainment:  You don't need a traffic sign to tell you that the next 10 miles are FREE of deer, do you?