In a perfect world, everyone would agree with your opinion. Your views on everyday matters both big and small would guide the culture and ripple through the public consciousness, becoming like law among a vast legion of followers. Your blessing would make or break a product in the marketplace, and your review scores would correlate directly to product sales figures. You would be admired far and wide for your vast knowledge, your persuasive skill, and your great hair.

Of course, no one lives in such a perfect world. In fact, the world of game reviews is so imperfect that even massive critical consensus on a title often has little to no impact on a game's popularity or cultural impact. For evidence, look no farther than games like Psychonauts, Ico and Beyond Good and Evil that sat unloved on store shelves despite consistently glowing reviews. On the other side of the coin, consider mediocre cash-ins like Enter the Matrix and Spider-Man 3 that shot to the top of the sales charts despite critical drubbing.

It's enough to lead review writers to the brink of an existential crisis. Is anyone even listening to our advice? Does what we write have any effect on the market at large? What good are reviews, anyway?

"Game reviews are only useful in reinforcing a pre-existing decision to buy," says Slashdot Games Editor Michael Zenke, voicing a cynical but somewhat commonplace view among game journalists. "They're useful to the publisher as a means of confirming a gamer's interest in a game. As far as swaying opinions, I don't really think so. My experience is that for a lot of the folks we'd call 'enthusiasts' or 'hardcore', their decision is made long before the review appears in the article."

Indeed, those in the know often base their purchasing decisions on the mounds of information that leaks out before stores even start taking pre-orders. Between screenshots, video trailers, TV and print advertising, hands-on previews, downloadable demos and public beta tests, there's often nothing left for a review to really reveal these days. "You likely aren't giving gamers any really unique information beyond the final verdict," said freelancer Troy Goodfellow of early reviews, "and, if you blow the review in a rush to get the 'FIRST' tag, you lose credibility with readers."

Even those who don't pay attention to the pre-release information often make that all-important decision to buy as soon as they hear a game's name. "Madden will always sell millions of units each year because of its established brand and its penetration into the consciousness of the general public," said Gamer 2.0 Managing Editor Anthony Perez. "Halo will always sell, as will Grand Theft Auto, Zelda, Mario, etc. At this stage, marketing and advertising have a much larger affect on mainstream consumer spending than any game reviews."

When readers do deign to consult a review, it's often in the most cursory manner possible. "Most people just want to know the score and maybe the plus and minus bullet points," said freelancer Tim Stevens. "Of those 10 percent who do care about the text of a given review, 90 percent of them probably spend no more than a minute skimming, only reading a few paragraphs closely." So should all game reviews be condensed into bullet points? No, Stevens says, because "that remaining one percent who read everything top to bottom is certainly a sizable market worth catering to."

Believe it or not, such comprehensive review readers do exist. "As a kid who only had the funds to pick up a game or two a month, my purchasing decisions were based mostly on reviews," recalls Game Informer Executive Editor Andy Reiner. "I followed every video game magazine, found the reviewers that had interests that were comparable to mine, and entrusted my funds to their opinions."