Are Game Reviews Necessary?

I am going to copy/paste my reply on a similar topic elswhere.  In essence though,we think the same and I agree with you.  I could care less about opinions, I want real information for me to be  the judge of.

Some things are just facts, and I've found sites like Giantbomb and Gametrailers to be very reliable.  There's no way I will spend $60+ to play games only to find out half of them are no good, that's up to the reviewers.

I think Quicklooks are much more useful than reviews.

I think you're thinking too philosophically. Game reviews are pretty useful to a lot of people because generally the people who review them have a relatively good taste for what makes a game good or bad.Therefore the general audience can get  a basic sense of weather or not they want that game. But many people may just have a huge bias for a game or company. Like with Brutal Legend, people could be giving it 1 star and I'd still be waking up early to get. But game reviews are not useful all the time but for many people on the fence they are quite useful.

*sigh*

At the very least the 10 point scale needs to be gotten rid of. Almost every game gets a 6 or above, so why not just make it a 5 point scale?

i actually think a 4 star (9 point if you include 1/2 and 0 ) rating is ideal for games. 

This is just because I'm mad in this respect, but I think a seven point scale, where a 5/7 is equal to a 5/5 in a five point scale, would be the way to go, where 6/7s are only the best of the best, and 7/7 is reserved for the best game ever made. Of course you could argue breaking it up into half points would make a 5 point scale twice as effective, but then it's really a 10 point scale in disguise, isn't it?

The key with reveiws, is to get to know the reviewers. After plenty of bombcast listening and website reading, I've got a very good idea about the gaming tastes of Jeff, Brad, Ryan, Vinny and to some extent Dave. So when I read a review from them, I can filter it through their gaming tastes, and apply that to my gaming tastes, and come up with a fairly good conclusion about whether or not I will enjoy it. Just reading random reviews on the internet are fairly pointless, except for some facts that can be extracted from the review, but the opinionated parts of the review are pointless. But reading reviews from reviewers you know can be extremely useful.

I don't care about peoples opinions beyond the fact that if someone I generally agree with says the game is good, I will probably like it. The reason I think they are absolutely necessary is because I want to hear about things like game breaking bugs, online lag, annoying OSK bosses, shitty controls, etc etc. If I can get that info from someone who has a similar taste in games as me then all the better.

Reviews are not necessary, they're just enjoyable to read to me.  I like hearing other people's opinions on games and movies.

Reviews allow for opinions to be heard, whether they be professional or from the consumer experience. It helps other people who are thinking about purchasing any item such as games, films, mugs etc. As it gives them a hands-on experience from another consumer of the product. No, they're not necessary, they are just something that a consumer can use to help decide on whether they should buy, rent, or not buy a product. People are free to ignore reviews and just go head first and they might buy a truely epic game or a bad game.

The fact people use other peoples reviews to backup their own opinion is fairly weak, if they use their own review that they have constructed aptly that's fine as it is there own opinion they are broadcasting. However this is not to say that opinion equals fact because it doesn't, we are all entitled to our opinions and reviews allow us to broadcast it.

No there not necessary, but technically nothing is.

Well, i think game reviews certainly aren't necessary...
To me they're simply a guide whether or not a game is any good.

I believe reviews are necessary because few people have the time to try out every game or are willing to take a chance at buying something they will be ultimately disappointed in (hence all the sequels - but that's another topic.)  Once a review gets past the technical issues, there are the impressions a critic has for a title.  Maybe they liked it, maybe they didn't so how does this apply to the consumer?  It is vital for any gamer who uses reviews as an aid in making their purchasing decisions to have a relationship with the critic.  If you are just reading random reviews found on any of the big sites or watching X-Play and have no idea about the tastes of person who wrote the review then it's about as useful as asking a monk who's been cloistered away in a monastery for twenty years should you buy this game.  Most of us listen to the opinions of others we trust in other things we experience.  Maybe a friend says "see this movie" or "try the veal."  We then, knowing our own tastes, incorporate that recommendation into our past experience with that person's suggestions and make a decision.  We shouldn't rely entirely on the picks and pans of any review, but if we have read much from a particular critic, we can use their assessment to help us decide if the is risk (money & time spent) is worth the reward.

Very few things in most of our lives ARE necessary.   As to whether or not they're useful: fuck yes they are.    A reviewer presents the facts about a game, then presents their opinion of those facts and finally gives it a score relative to all other games.   Without this we'd rely on word of mouth or chance to pick which games to play.   Ultimately a reviewer is giving us his opinion, yes, but it's an opinion that's well formulated and clearly laid out (if it's a good review).    Your friend could tell you "this game is awesome," but rarely he'll be able to tell you all the reasons why in a concise manner.   That is what reviews accomplish.