When was the last time you actually relied upon a single videogame review to make a game purchase decision? It's probably been quite a while.

Reviews are one of the most important ties to our readers. Lest we forget, reviews truly matter to those gamers not enveloped in the media's perception-altering free-game bubble. When it comes to spending hard earned cash (sometimes mom's) on games, reviews are paramount.

Review aggregation websites such as GameRankings, MetaCritic and RottenTomatoes, have dramatically altered the impact of game reviews. Where gamers once had a limited number of sources for quality reviews, they tended to migrate to the sources they trust the most.

Today, a rapidly growing number of gamers make their purchase decisions based on industry aggregate review scores. These review averages are generally more reliable, less likely to be a product of bias, and far less likely to be influenced by mistakes. The very nature of review aggregation weeds out prejudice, errors and premature hype to create the safest score.

When I started working in the enthusiast press a decade ago (I was known then as Overused Cliche Boy!), I relied solely on the reviews in two game magazines for all my purchases. Today, I go to a review aggregate site, sort by the top 100 and scroll down until I see a game I haven't played. It's simple, and I haven't been steered wrong yet.

In an environment in which reviews are almost entirely interchangeable across all magazines, the core concept of a review section is rapidly nearing the end of its usefulness. If individual magazine reviews don't have something special that makes them stand out from the crowd, their primary role is reduced to serving as 1/100th of someone else's review aggregate.

However, individual reviews and review sections could certainly enjoy a resurgence in value if they were created with an eye towards originality and credibility. A key to making this happen is purposely breaking away from the review aggregate format.

If a publication could create reviews that defied conversion into a single percentage value, those reviews certainly would stand out. If the quality of editorial and the gaming insight matched the originality, readers would be compelled to go to the source, when purchasing new games. That's one way to make a publication indispensable.

Although this list isn't complete, here are five starter ideas for breaking out of the review aggregate mold.

Perhaps the most challenging way to break free from review aggregation is to simply get rid of the scores altogether - no stars, no percentages, no thumbs in either direction, and no little guy in various states of graded excitement.

The major trouble with this approach is giving readers a one-glance feel for the direction of the review. Summarizing a complete review in ten words or less requires skilled writing, but it can be done. Publications have tried this in the past, but there are certainly more creative solutions yet untried.

Using clever text summaries for one or all of the aspects of the game is but one way to ditch scores. One magazine (I can't quite remember which one) used to include a ratings chart (along with a single base score) with every review. This chart scored the game based on how it played on the first day all the way through six months. This chart was likely very hard on editors and freelancers, but it was certainly unique. Without a base score the chart would be almost impossible to aggregate fairly, yet it would still give readers an instant idea about the quality of the game.

Another solution would be to give a variety of scores. For instance, one could publish a score for casual gamers, a score for hardcore genre fans, a score for renters, a score for girlfriends, AND a score for kids all on the same page. Personalizing the review scores would better connect a publication to its readers and would provide invaluable incentive for the readers to always check its scores.

Upside
This would challenge the writers to let their words speak, rather than the scores.
Readers would be more likely to actually read the reviews.
It would keep games from getting clumped into scoring "slots" they don't deserve.

Downside
Readers want one-glance summaries of game reviews.
This process requires a great deal of creativity and craftsmanship to be useful.
If editors get lazy, no-score reviews can quickly turn awful.

Another way to beat the aggregates is to focus on two to five MegaReviews per month. Treat the biggest games in the stores each month as an individual feature story, and jam the rest into small, scored capsule reviews that feed the aggregates.

If a magazine built a reputation for putting out a couple brilliant, comprehensive, and meaty reviews every month readers may turn to that publication to get the "full story" on their game. For instance, if everyone gives Halo 2 the core 600 words and a two page spread, most of the reviews are going to hit on the same topics. On the other hand, if one publication is known for its massive 6-8 page, 4000 word reviews of big games, readers automatically know that they're going to find out more when they read that publication.

One of the biggest concerns surrounding this approach is that those interested in the non-blockbuster titles, will feel underserved. The fact, however, is that they are likely already supplementing reviews with others, and you're buying very little of their loyalty by using an entire page to describe the horror of their latest Dragon Ball fighter in detail.

Once publications with uninspired interchangeable reviews admit that readers don't live and die by their recommendations, they can start moving on to more creative solutions such as this.

Upside
Focusing on feature reviews would allow the writers to really get to the soul of games
Feature reviews provide greater opportunity for the design staff to shine.
Solid feature reviews are fantastic reputation builders

Downside
Some deserving games may miss the spotlight
Dragon Ball fans send many, many angry emails
Feature reviews take more time than regular reviews

Another solution that would actually keep a publication in the review aggregate pool, is to trumpet a publication's own credibility to the point that readers believe that its scores have greater weight than other review scores.

It's actually kind of shocking that (based on my monthly reading) none of the publications I frequent really puts out a strong, consistent effort to make its reviews seem more important than the competition's. Touting the credibility of the reviewers, comparing review scores to reader scores, or even contrasting review scores with the aggregates to show a tighter grading curve would certainly help.

Editors often believe that readers magically think we're the most trustworthy voice around. Unfortunately that isn't always the case. That's why it doesn't hurt to regularly give readers reasons to build the trust for themselves.

Upside
Actively building credibility should be a focus anyway.
This is an excellent way to establish "name" reviewers.

Downside
It isn't easy to back up claims of credibility.
Most readers are programmed to distrust self-serving claims.
This can easily lead to pointless, unsupported self-promotion.

EGM often reviews games with two or three different editors. This gives readers some of the benefits of review aggregation in a single publication. This is the right move in the right direction, and there's no reason to even stop here.

In games that everyone in the office has played, why not let the other staffers offer a short score or statement? For a game like GTA's latest sequel, most of the staff will have played the game extensively and could likely provide a useful score.

For the readers this gives a greater opportunity to get a wider feel for the game, and they may even get a chance to hear a rare voice of dissent. Even the great games have their share of haters and even the worst titles have rabid fans. Readers certainly have a wide spectrum of views, why shouldn't the publications as well?

Review aggregate sites would still be able to include all the different scores, but with this approach, publications would beat aggregate sites to the punch.

Upside
A publication can express a greater diversity of voices.
The interns have a lot to say about games as well.
Readers will appreciate the more unusual results this approach might provide.

Downside
This may dilute the grand, unified voice of a publication
It may be tempting to include outrageous side opinions for the sake of outrageousness.

By now you've read a thousand rants on the problems of review grade inflation, so I won't bother you with those again. However, one of the best ways to defy review aggregation and to make your reviews stand out is to destroy the typical review grading curve.

If, for instance, a publication could establish a 10 point scale in which reviews were based upon purchase value and average games scored only a 3 or a 4, the higher scores would certainly become far more important.

The lower scores would give the publication instant credibility as "discerning gamers" and would free up the top scores (5-10) to show a more full range of differentiation for the top-tier titles gamers care about most.

This would give readers more to think about when deciding between two good games. That's the toughest purchase choice that most gamers have to make and it's a choice that most publications sidestep by clumping their "good" review scores in the upper part of a loose curve.

Publications must prepare readers for these kinds of reviews. A publication must constantly explain its rating criteria - probably on every review. Even with abundant warnings, readers and score-checking rubberneckers will almost certainly complain, so thick skin will be needed.

Upside
Top scores will really stand out as important.
Uninspired games will get the lower scores they deserve
The publication will be considered a tough grader

Downside
The game companies will call... daily
Owners of mediocre games will cry foul when their average title gets 7's everywhere else and a 3 in your publication.