1 - very glowing reviews which note the SP campaign faults but decide that given how important the MP is they'll more or less ignore them
2 - very good reviews which note the same things but chose not to simply give the weaker SP a free pass because it's all about the MP
Personally, if you include SP I believe it should be weighed equally, and hence for me not just Reach but titles like MW2 would lose a point right away on the SP.
As one review I read said, if you love the MP only or that's your focus. Almost perfect. If you love SP only or that's your focus your going to be a bit dissapointed and find merely a good game.
Arguing about a Meta of 93 is hilarious though, really. Given the obvious comparison to Uncharted 2 I'd said the clear focus isn't so much Halo 3 scoring higher but Uncharted 2, the PS3s flagship critical darling (or one of them) scored more on average.
One other thing, I also get the impression from most reviews that a title featuring Master Chief and a more Halo 1/2/3 like campaign, vs what is a more ODST like campaign, would have also garnered higher scores - interesting how the reviewers seem to feel such a difference there.
I'm guessing the first big non-Bungie Halo will be a full Halo 4 featuring the Master Chief.
It seems he's bugged by Uncharted 2's higher Meta. As ridiculous as it is, it does have a certain merit though: Uncharted 2 doesn't have the same amount of content, as robust as an online, and no creation mode. That doesn't necessarily mean that all that makes Reach the better package, but the heftier one. Still doesn't mean it deserves higher scores than (as you put it) the PS3's darling either.
What I'm saying to you, Dirty, just be happy with Reach. HEAVY RAIN's Meta is nearly 10 points lower than Uncharted 2's. Which of the two would I play and enjoy more?