You know what THE most shocking part is: THQ knew it was gonna be crap and dropped it before they went down..

Obviously! How the hell didn't I think about that?!

Actually, most previews and reviews I have seen for Xenoblade Chronicles X - there aren't many, mind - have been quite positive.  IGNs was positive, the Nintendo World Report (or it might have been Insider) preview/review thing was postive, the Famitsu reviews were positive, Dualshocker's  preview was positive.  The only *not* positive one from anyone "major" that comes to mind is the Famitsu preview.  Which is hardly shocking as they gave the original a considerable ammount of crap too (while openly admiting they played less than half the core content of the game and next to none of the side content).  So if the general trend is to be believed, 85 to low 90s would be expected, with 90 being a safe bet.  Not saying this will be the case, there are other factors at play such as who is chosen to review it (it is clasified as a JRPG but has a lot of WRPG design to it, moreso than the first, so the score could be effected by whether or not it's a JRPG or WRPG focused reviewer who reviews the game).

But previews aren't always indicators of the final reception.  I remember back when Two Worlds was first being talked about and shown, the previews were quite hopeful.  Then the game released and was panned because the "rough beta build" they had played turned out to be the *final* build that was released.

But barring that, shouldn't previews be tied to final scores?  I mean, if you aren't previewing a rough beta build but rather something as close to the finished product as you can get it, shouldn't the reception of that preview be similar in some regard to the final product?  I don't see the issue here.  I would find a much more serious problem if glowing previews turned into crappy reviews at the last minute or vice versa. 

Holy fuck... I don't think i've ever seen a metascore that low...

Godzilla says hi

Dualshockers was very positive, yes, but if you read the review you would learn that the reviewer could not read or speak Japanese, and thus wasn't capable of understand any bit of the plot. This is important, because if you look at, say, Kotaku's review, or ryuzaki57's import review, you would learn that the plot, characters, and story are a weakness of the game. This was also implied in Famitsu's review.

Really, what I'm trying to say here, is that people shouldn't just think that a game will be reviewed well or poorly for no real reason. They have to look at what previewers are saying about the game, assess their strengths and weaknesses, and compare said strengths and weaknesses to previous titles made by the developer if possible.

Edit: In a sense, the early scores given are less important than what reviewers are saying are the strengths and weaknesses about the game. That's what I think at least.

The only thing that's surprising is the people thinking this game would be any good. I was hoping they would get at least a mediocre game. But, that was not to be.

Take a look at this:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/ride-to-hell-retribution

(and that's the best scoring version)

And Ride to Hell. 

Gameover.gr gave it a 8/10. it counts for Metacritic so it might raise its average a little.

Pros
Great boss fights
nice balance between gunplay and swordplay
fluid combat
Fun online

Cons
Framedrops

edit: i added a link to the review.