I usually check multiple sites for game reviews, and any time the reviews overlap, I figure that's something worth paying attention to.
In the end, it all comes down to the fact that game reviews are highly subjective. All kinds of things can factor into a game's review score. For example, games released at the beginning of a console's lifecycle may get rather high reviews, but largely because there's so little to compare them to. If they were to be revisited periodically throughout the lifecycle of a console, many of the scores would likely decline. You also have to consider the mood of the reviewer at the time as well. How many games have they reviewed that day, and what the relative quality of those games were. If you played 3 really awful games for the first 6 hours of the day, even a mediocre game would seem excellent in comparison. In contrast, if you played an excellent game, and then went on to review a bloody horrible game, you might pan it even more harshly.
On top of all that, games are starting to become big business, so there's more pressure on review sites to give favorable reviews to games from big name publishers. Not that it's limited solely to game reviews, but that's another subject. Which is exactly why I check multiple sites. If a score is roughly the same at multiple sites, it's probably accurate. If it varies wildly, something is obviously up.
Hello everyone. For all of my game reviews I have gone to IGN, but I have begun to question their reviewing skills. I was wondering where everyone else looked to for reviews. I don't really like X-play or Gamespot either, so please don't mention them. Thanks.

Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic