Im not assuming anything I called out those games cameras because I PLAYED them and they do suck. Controlling the camera with a dpad blows. Ive done it. 

I believe you are ignorant because you havent PLAYED the game, period. Thats not an opinion, deal with it. We're done here.

And what "shit" did I talk? I explained in three paragraphs that in my opinion a 6 is an above average score. If Gravity Rush is good then getting anything above a 5 is good. I haven't played the game but I don't see how a 6.5 is a bad score. How good it is, is subjective. You think it's the best and someone else might think it's decent. The problem is too many gamers think anything below an 8 is a bad score. But in reality a review isn't negative until it dips below 5. I suggest that a 6 is a legitmently positive score and you think I'm bashing the game? This isn't grade school and it's not a A-F system, it's a 10 point system.

 Below is an example of how to break down the meaning behind a 10 point rating system.

The game "X Racing" is a racing game for all platforms.

Possible review scores for "X Racing":

10/10: Get this game even if you don't like racing games. It's one of the best games of the year, not just in the racing genre.

9/10: If you've ever enjoyed a racing game you'll like this.

8/10: A great racer, racing fans of most kinds will have fun.

7/10: Fun racer with a few flaws. If you're not a racing fan this won't change your mind.

6/10: An above average racing game with some flaws worth checking out.

5/10: Moderate to hardcore racing fans will find enjoyment, casual racing fans may want to rent first.

4/10: Only the most hardcore racing fans will want to try it, casual racing fans shouldn't bother.

3/10: Lots of flaws, don't bother unless you're really dying for another racing game.

2/10: So flawed that even the most hardcore racing fan won't be able to find any enjoyment.

1/10: Unplayable garbage.

When you look at the full spectrum of a 10 point system it's clear to me that a 6.5/10 is not a bad score.

What does it matter? The SS review was yesterdays news once comenting was available, just like this will be in a week. Had the SS review allowed comments the second it was put up you'd see just as many or more comments than the GR review.

The controls were great.  there was a lot to them, but the controls works perfectly in my time in Hekseville.  Some of the side missions were dumb, but they were optional; in skyward sword, you HAD to find the three plant dudes before the plant dude elder king guy remembered where Zelda was.  Optional sidequests are much better than forced fetchquests.  Nothing more to that.  

combat did get a bit repetitive, I admit, but really how is that different than ANY other game.  Call of Duty has you pointing and shooting at guys till the very end, with the occasional quick time event.  inFamous has you using the same powers to fight the same enemies over and over again.  most games ARE repetitive, it's the slight variation that makes it tolerable and the abilities Kat has mixed with the level design mean that every encounter is its own, despite the fact that you're probably using the same stable of about 3 moves over and over again.  

Well it isn't as innovative as the yearly Call of Duty and isn't made for the US American so it doesn't deserve a 11/10 *trollface*

My thread is about Gamespot being fair or not, if you are here only to complain about when the comment section came into effect go make your own thread.

but that would be redundant.  So let's get this straight: this thread is only for troll hits, not for actual discussion? 

Nope, came here to point out how stupid your topic title is. Though, I shouldn't expect much better from you.

To be honest, even though it was the recipient of some pretty questionable reviews (the IGN one in particular - super short and with every single category an identical 7.5? Every damn one? Just lazy...) if it gets this level of controversy with American sites giving it lower scores, I'm happy for it because it will raise awareness about the game. I'd bet that some of those 600 commenters had not heard of the game before or considered buying it, and now may well do so. So, good for the game, really.

Anyway, at this point, video game scores have become a bit of a sick joke. Skyrim getting 90s with massive technical problems on the PS3 was just un-fucking believable, and Mass Effect 3's reviews being soooo out of sync with the reality of what die hard series fans thought about the game....

Unfortunately most of the press scores Western games in accordance with the level of hype surrounding them. It seems to me that reviewers put their fanboy hats on rather than their critical hats - their job is more about getting people excited for the game and going to fancy pre-launch events than accurately critiquing every aspect of it - more of a PR role than a critic.

Luckily we have more gameplay videos, demos and forum impressions than ever available to us these days, and so we can make judgements for ourselves. It's unfortunately the mainstream appeal that gets affected by big outlet's scores, and so niche games undeservedly get bitten on the ass, or "AAA" (ugh) games get a free pass, and this creates a harder environment for smaller games to find mainstream success. 

Oh these scores. I like to see my favorite games get awesome scores as much as the next guy but we cannot throw a hissy fit every time somebody goes below a 7. A 6.5 is decent. Do those people realize the scale goes from 0 - 10 and not 7 - 10?

Gravity Rush has a solid 84% on metacritic (which isn't the best measure of how good a game is but nevertheless) which means it is a great game. Not everybody like these types of games and most reviews in my opinion are in the end biased and subjective to a certain extent.