Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I wouldn't recommend metacritic.
There are rarely any 'reviews' out there, just some points with mandatory six sentences that tell little about the game.

 Macok wrote:
I wouldn't recommend metacritic.
There are rarely any 'reviews' out there, just some points with mandatory six sentences that tell little about the game.

It depends on what you're looking for. Metacritic is the best place to go to if you want to see how good or bad a game is. If you want a detailed review of a game, you can then go to the sites mentioned there.

 Soladrin wrote:

I avoid metacritic like the plague, that site has way to much pull on publishers and has even dicked game developers out of money.

Badly written and uninformed reviews from some website you've never heard of hold just as much weight as more reputable reviewers on Metacritic. I remember when The Secret World launched, one of the Metacritic reviews was a review of the game's beta, and many of the problems the reviewer harped on had actually been fixed by launch. Obsidian missed out on a nice payday because the Metacritic score for Fallout: New Vegas came up one point short of a milestone Bethesda had set for them. And most people I know consider New Vegas to be superior to Fallout 3.