somewhat.
if bad mechanics or poor gameplay is mentioned frequently, then that may be a game I'm better off without.
most reviews kinda skim over some of that stuff if the game isn't good, only a few willmention it.
but i've found that i agree with the reviews more than once. portal is GREAT. team fortress 2? it's changed. not really for the better in my opinion. seriously, buy an item set and gain some bonus?
modern warfare 1 was good. played the demo, still not sure if I really want the game or not.
soul calibur 4? meh. single player isn't worth it, but it makes a fine game to play some short matches with a friend. then again, castle crashers does that I think.
devil may cry 4? yeah, it does have some very annoying problems. seriously, jumping puzzles where you jump around 1" from spikes that knock you down, where you have to kill a bunch of enemies before you can try the puzzle again. and the combat is pretty fun. unbelievable most of the time, but still fun.
I have avoided purchasing a couple games based on his reviews, but if I'm curious about a game, I try to find a demo or a friend who has it.
because really, I'm not the reviewer (be it yahtzee, or an ign or whatever reviewer) and if I'm interested, reviews are an idea of how it is-but try before you buy means I have some games that I enjoy that some reviewers think are horrible (bloodrayne 2 is a good example). their tastes don't perfectly match mine.