I did a search on the site and wasn't able to come up with any hits. But if I am posting a duplicate topic, I apologize in advance.
My question is simple: Where do you guys (and gals) go when you're looking for a game review? Any and all suggestions for reliable/objective reviews are greatly appreciated.

[Trying to post this for the third time -- the GOG forums really do **** up way too much at this time of day, they need to sort out there cron jobs]
You'd think so, wouldn't you. Except there's one horrible trend that is all too apparent. Publishers only care about the number because that's ultimately all that most people care about.
Seems few people actually bother to read the reviews. They just look at the number.
Take a look, for example, on the Steam forums, you'll often see people making comments such as "Ugh. Won't buy that cos it's only got a metacritic score of 85!!!!1!" and so on.
Hell, even Valve refuse to sell games that are under a certain metacritic score now. That's why it took JoWood so long to get certain games on to Steam and why other games of there's are still not on Steam, despite many people asking them to put it on Steam.
And look on pretty much any other major forum, and you'll see the same sort of comments.
Besides, even with a bad review, it's very easy for publishers to manipulate the text of that review to their advantage -- which is another reason why the main body of the review isn't such a large issue to publishers. They just can't do the same with a score.

Unless of course, the game in question is Spore. Then you can't even rely on the number of negative reviews as most of those were decidedly questionable too. And yes, Spore was a an okay game, in that it provided a good amount of enjoyment (my children especially loved the the fact that you could make your own creatures with it).
So best bet: read user reviewers with an open mind and apply common sense =)

If this was 10 years ago, I would tell you to read the magazine Computer Games Strategy Plus.
Now, I can't say I fully trust any reviewer. What I do is trust different opinions to all together, form one notion about not only what the game is, but if it is one that I will enjoy.
I don't usually agree with mainstream reviews. Examples are Bioshock which everyone loved and I thought it was crap apart from the graphics, and Alpha Protocol which everyone attacked and I thought it was great.
If I had to suggest a site or two I would say www.gamingheaven.com , Out of Eight, Quarter to three. Even then though, that doesn't mean I agree with their reviews as much as that I "know" how they do their reviews and know that for the most part, they will be accurate for certain things. Above all GH though which hasn't yet be outright false about a game yet.
As little as I trust pro reviews, even more I don't trust customer/gamer reviews because they tend to be full of people who exaggerate or all out lie about how good or bad a game is.
Gameplay videos are a good way to see how a game really is.
After a while you will learn yourself and what you know will like and what not and with experience manage to detect the BS from fact in reviews.

No, it's helpful if they do their job and explain why they feel how they feel about the game. Saying "it's awesome" is not helpful, saying "it's awesome because so and so" is helpful, because then you can get an idea of how awesome you might think it is.
Also, it's funny how people want reviews to be more objective, but also say they trust user reviews more. That does not compute. :-)

I stick with destructoid and metacritic. And my friends. If they say I'll like the game I'll probably do.

What site are you talking about?

he meant this site. He searched to see if there were any similar topics created here on the gog forums

You can't really trust any one source. You have to look around and see what you can dig up. Never bother going by the score. That's especially true of user reviews which tend to be either a 1 or a 5. Read why they feel the way they do. Completely dismiss any review that covers all platforms in one review (Eurogamer and Gamespot, for instance). They're just worthless and lazy (not to mention corrupted).

I typically use <span class="bold">Game Rankings</span> as it allows you to access several sites reviews on a product form one location.
Check it out and see what you think.

Game reviews are like movie reviews . . . they often leave me wondering how they came up with that opinion (or what world are they living in). Most leave out what I want to know the most, what kind of DRM does it have? A few will include the info but most gloss over it or ignore it completely. DRM affects long term ownership so it has become very important to the game buying decision . . at least for me . . so I tend to look for reviews that discuss it in detail.
Reviews were important to me back when I was buying EVERY new release. Since I only buy DRM free games now . . . I am no longer swayed by the hype. I also find that when enough time has passed . . the hype dies down and a few simple searches will produce more realistic info.
GOG has eliminated much of the review problem. With the GOG prices / selection I have a larger backlog then I ever had before, I have invested far less and I no longer deal with DRM processes affecting my system stability. Even if I purchase a game I don't like . . . the cost is so low that it's not an issue. I also tend to try more games regardless of the reviews.

Wow! A guy gets some sleep and he comes back to more quality feedback than he could have hoped for! I really appreciate everyone taking the time to chime in with opinions and suggestions.
By 'search on the site', I was indeed referring to GOG.
And I should clarify my choice of words regarding 'objective'. I had noticed on Gamespot that they tab certain gaes as 'promoted titles' and it made me wonder just how influenced any professional review could be if the game is being 'promoted'. So, by objective I mean free of commercial influence (no matter how sutle or indirect).
Thanks again, everyone. I won't mark anything solved just yet in case someone has some more input they'd like to share.

That's pretty much what I was getting at, you're not disagreeing with me. I just don't think it's hard to say "the combat is lame because of X, though if you like Y then it might be more like Z to you."
Every review is an opinion piece, but at the same time every review needs to be somewhat objective or else it's pointless.

It is pointless, because it means nothing. Yes, it is to save people who don't want to read time, but it does that in a completely arbitrary manner as the score is not formulated on anything, it's random. You might explain in the review that you personally do not like stat-based combat, but that for those who do the game will be much better... then you slap a 6 on it though because you don't like stat-based combat and the person glancing at the 6 has no real idea of the context and says "wow what a shitty game" even though that person might LOVE stat-based combat.
It's pointless.

GameFaqs is my first choice and then watch gameplay videos.
I really miss that magazine. Unfortunately it seems that no one want to do another magazine about that genre.
A good substitute is The Wargamer. If I want to know about a wargame there is where I look.

Generally, reviews are best mined for objective information that will help you make a more informed decision. I take the opinion side with a grain of salt. I know that sites like Gamespot are typically going to gush over stupid shit I don't care about rather than the games that really interest me, but they can still be a useful source of information if you can separate fact* from opinion.
I usually just pick a few with a range of scores from Metacritic to see what the fans and the haters all have to say.
I also enjoy Rock Paper Shotgun's Wot I Think columns. They're not really reviews in the traditional sense, but they are thoughtful, well-considered articles.
* Of course, you may have to compare conflicting "facts" from different sources in order to get a more accurate picture.