If presented in a way that explains the faults, and what’s good about a game, then sure. I think though the main problem with reviews, or what gamers expect from reviews these days, is that if its below a 8.5 its utter trash.

I still sort of view game ratings, or think of games based on the EGM scale.

As recalled:

10-Perfection
9-Virtually flawless
8-Splendid
7-Worthy
6-Good,not great
5-Average
4-Rent first
3-Time waster
2-Don’t even rent
1-Flush it


But I think most of the people that do reviews have a sort of inflated look on scores. Thus implying anything below 8.5 rapidly declines into a crappy game.

But no game is perfect!

I always think reviews will be important. EGM stopped me from buying Full Spectrum Warrior 2, and that saved me moneys! I like saving moneys! For me, reviews are important to warn us about the bombs.

I just wrote a piece about this topic. reviews should be less judgemental with no scores period, and more factual. Kind of like a "The Good" and "The Bad" section, and leave it at that. At least if I were a major editor that's what I'd do.

I think reviews can be valuable, you just have to find a reviewer whose opinion you value. I read most of Giant Bomb's reviews because they are well written, articulate, and the cast has similar gaming views as myself. 

The real issue is that the kinds of people that would ask this sort of question or would respond to it are the kinds of people that are well informed ahead of time. So they already have solidified views on a game well before it comes out. Had I listened to the reviews I read I wouldn't have purchased Scribblenauts. Instead however, I went on my already formed impressions and wasted 30 some odd bucks.

My friends that are relatively hardcore gamers, compared to the masses, read a ton of reviews because they simply don't dedicate themselves to the gaming press like we do. 

Reviews are important, just not to us.