if your talking about the DreamCast channel then you would quickly realize that there wasnt a single bad DC game. Other then that where are these 10's? 

Nintendo Power gave SMG a 9.5; they also gave Link's Crossbow Training a 6.5.  Just because it's an official magazine doesn't mean its reviews can't be valid.  If you look at the list of reviews, some reviews are excluded.  It's probable that these reviews are both from sites that are likely to be biased AND that their review doesn't seem to match up with the score they gave it.

IGN is ok, i dont agree with alot of their reviews though

Gametrailers is more accurate IMO

no considering Cheat Code Central was at one point not bolded. It goes by the number of reviews you can push out a month. PSU.com will be added there within the next 3 month and in the next year will be averaged into the full average. Now does that sound credibile? A biased as hell PS site being considered credible (and yes I worked for PSU I know they are biased as hell)

If you are looking for a general consensus on a game, then I don't see any problem with gamerankings. Its useful for getting a general impression of a game - and even for comparing different games.

Whether that average has any use or purpose for an individual - is another question. I personally prefer IGN (except in rare circumstances).

 Are you kidding? Nintendo Power is biased compared to IGN? I think this is bullshit until you come up with some numbers.

Well this is not my sort of problem, I work mostly with time series and the real work is done by software. I do not think we should get to bothered by people pointing to one site over another most of the time as the difference in scores I doubt is all that meaningful except in the most extreme cases. If we assume that there is such a thing as a 'real' score for a game then what we have at gamerankings is just the average of the error from that 'real' score added to the 'real' score. That the average may not be that meaningful is possible as we have no idea what sort of distribution the error has and even if it is some form of centered about the 'real' score balanced distribution we may run into problems with really high or low scores not being able to accomodate the distribution as scores above 10 and below 0 are excluded. If your willing to assume that the distribution is not a problem then yes adding together these scores will produce a better approximation of the 'real' score than just guessing at who is a better reviewer, most of the time. The biggest problem I think is this idea of 'real' score, there is no way to measure it or even defining it. Also the various reviewers adimt the yard stick for measuring it also changes with time, an idea I am not completely sure how it will influence your error calculations. I personally like IGN and Gametrailers, as in I read or watch their reviews. I look at Gamerankings mostly to see a broad look at stuff, after that I hop over and look sites I trust more and see what they really say as I don't think those numbers really have all that much detail about what a game really is about.

 Gamespot sucks now. According to them, Warioware > Zelda: TP and Metriod Prime 3.  According to GS, R&C: Future = Conan (reviewed just days apart, both getting a 7.5).  Neither Uncharted, Mass Effect, nor UT3 are worthy of a 9.0, yet Rock Band is.

I can't understand how can they count gamesTM review for R&C in. They scored it 6/10 and started like this:

Gamerankings isn't credible and there's no argument that can be used to suggest it is. All reviews simply are not, and should not be treated as equal. This is why Metacritic is a statistically superior site.