I don't understand why it is that people base their thoughts and beliefs around mainstream website rating systems. IE: Gamespot, IGN, GameInformer etc.

You should be the judge of the game, because the game is going to feel and play differently to you than it did to the reviewer. The way I look at it is that any game reviews can go 2 points above and below the average critic review. So take a metacritic of 7 for example. To me, before I even buy this game, before I even play this game. In my mind I can almost be assured that this game can either be the a 9 to me, or a 4 to me.

The reason for this is because of the way games are reviewed. Websites praise the hell out of little things in visuals like good shadows and good light effects, whereas I don't really care because I didn't spend 70 dollars to look at shadows or lighting effects. I spent it to PLAY the game. Also, reviewers will criticize the hell out of the game for "weak story lines and characters" or "weak sound effects" where again. The majority of the time, they expect some huge lavish conceptual twisting story, but they get the most simple of stories that worked and the characters did a great job. And sound effects.... really? REALLY...? Unless a gun shot ends up being a baby giggling over and over and over again, who really cares. If it sounds like a gun shooting, then hot damn! We have a gun shooting!

People need to start thinking on their own and using their own judgements because for the simple things above like I mentioned, a reviewer can bump up a score 2 points for having great production values that the average gamer won't even notice or care about.

So if a review says 7 and it gets praise for good lighting and great sound and visuals. Remember, the gameplay might not all be there or something else might be broken in the game which could easilymake it a 5 in your books.

The scores they give is a combination of the entire game including its production and finish. Not just gameplay.