While you have a good point, I think it is harder to push yourself with videogames. They usually represent a larger investment of time, money and different genreas can require different skill sets you may or may not have. It is much cheaper (in terms of time and money) to give a movie or music a chance than it is a video game.

I do not understand this need to be constantly "challenged". I've played videogames since the Atari 2600. I'm not going to suddenly start liking games I never enjoyed in the past. I'm 33...I have a wife and two kids. A busy job. My time is limited. I'm not going to pick up Carcossone or Civ 4 because I've played games like that before and I know I don't like them. But I'll pick up a title I am interested in if I like the genre, I like the previews and the reviews are generally favorable.

Why would I waste time and money on genres I don't like? Just to be a "well-rounded" gamer? I play games to enjoy myself in my free time, not to break new boundaries or open my mind. If that's how you play games, more power to you. But I've paid my videogame dues, and I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself what I'm going to like.

I avoid reviews when it comes to judging games. They have a really hard time judging what's a good game or a bad game. They're so blinded by good graphics and hype at times that they're totally willing to overlook major problems with games. They also dont' take into account that most gamers don't have 4 TVs and systems in the same room so off-line multiplayer is a really limited aspect of a game.

Take Halo for example. I read only a few reviews out of dozens that even bothered to mention how incredibly repetitive and bland the game got. Gamespy's review was a huge deviation from the norm because the reviewer actually took the time to criticize how limited the game was in terms of scope.

There are also instances where I totally disagree with the score given. Take Twilight Princess for example - it was a great game, but many reviewers felt tepid in their response. To them, I guess Zelda was beginning to get old - but GTA games get stellar reviews despite how the gameplay has hardly changed in over 10 years.

There's also the bias that shiny new games have. It's been apparent since the Playstation age - games with great graphics but shallow gameplay, no story, and bland gameplay tend to get stellar scores.

Most gaming news is just way too biased IMO too. Everyone was hyping the PSP but totally shot down the DS - and the clear winner in terms of hardware and software is apparent. The same thing happened with the PS3.

To be fair though, many people adore Halo, so where you found repetitiousness others found fun. There is no official take on if a game is good or not, they're just all opinions. For instance, while I'm not Halo mega fan, I found it not much more repetitive than any other shooter (save for the Library level -- good god) or lacking in scope. And that's the problem I have with reviews from a single perspective. There is no one "right" review, so unless you're going to seek out a bunch of reviews, you only get a few perspectives, that are a little skewed anyway.

It's very true and I think that's a real problem. I like that we're seeing an indie games movement that is open to a wide audience via the console virtual stores. Hopefully that will put pressure on the big developers.

Another big problem of course is the licensing system. That adds $5-10 to the cost of every game.

Well if you view games as entertainment and nothing else, this is a fine attitude to have. Just don't expect me to not roll my eyes.

On the flip side, please allow me to roll my eyes at anybody who judges games only on how "innovative" they are. In my experience, the best games aren't always the most innovative -- instead, they build off of a previous game, and refine the gameplay and other elements.

If not entertainment then what?

Job?
Continuing education?
Food?
Shelter?

Maybe I'm being dense but I can't think of any other category than entertainment. We could go into the whole games=art debate - but even art is a form of entertainment.

Too right.

This is one aspect of the move to digital distribution I can get behind. There are so many new "kinds" of games being experimented with. Things like Sword & Poker, the Bryce Manor game, Galcon Labs, etc and those are just some examples from the first page on my iPod. I think that Arcade, PSN and WiiWare and all the other distribution channels give developers a way to take a chance on odd ideas we wouldn't see otherwise.

I don't really give a shit how innovative games are, as long as they're good. Do you really believe everything I say?

Yes.

Yeah I think these are all promising developments. It's an exciting time to be a gamer.

I still don't know what you are rolling your eyes at. What do you view video games as?

The original question here is "what do you look for in video game reviews." My answer is that I don't care what individuals say, but if a majority of reviews say a game I'm interested in is good...then I feel confident purchasing it.

I don't see how anyone could find fault with that method.

I totally agree. I have to chuckle when people will complain that gaming used to be better when the focus wasn't on making just pretty games and it wasn't so expensive to be a gamer. It is cheaper now (in real terms) than ever to play a variety of great games.