These aren't good enough answers to me. Last gen, AAA games often had more reviews on 360 AND reviewed higher. An arguement could be made that that is because ports often ran better on the 360 than the PS3.

Okay, fair enough.

This gen, there is a straightforward role reversal - multiplats run better on PS4 and the Ps4 also has more reviews. Hey they're still scoring lower? 

This is a case of bias. Do reviewers only review games in the context of that platform? There being other great exclusives on PlayStation that might be of higher quality than a given AAA multiplat shouldn't mean that your review scale only applies to that one platform. In other words, if you reviewed Quantum Break in a post uncharted 4 world, you should still hold your scoring against the best in the industry, regardless of if that game is on said platform or not.

Has halo only ever scored high critically because it's the best shooter within the Xbox platform, or because it's one of the best shooters in the industry? 

The lack of standards/quality control for reviews is a complete joke and should explicitly be the reason we can all point to sites like metacritic and dismiss them, and that goes all ways (not just for any platform in particular).

Nintendo is considered niche / small kids by some while Sony is considered to be mainstream. So of course they receive more attention and coverage.

I agree with you. Reviews should stand even after better or worst game come after the one reviewed. But I think the case will be that if a good game comes before a masterpiece, will get better score than if it comes after the masterpiece... And in this case, multiplat game that gets worse score in PS4 also has better graphics and less hiccups, so it doesnt make sense at all, so Me saying its because of lack of better games on Xbone, may be sadly true, and its only my opinion, not based on actual facts that i know of.

Well, more PS Magazines/sites = more reviews for PS exclusives. You could say that 360 and Wii beat PS3 for a long time and PS3 exclusives got still more reviews but I guess that has something to do with the PS2 era, many PS magazines were still alive from that time.

And PS is obviously strong in some smaller markets where as example Xbox is not really relevant so that a magazne from these smaller countries may only review PS titles even if it isn't a PS only mag. 

It would be only real news in my opinion if Xbox or Nintendo games would get more reviews as PS games. 

More reviewers = more objectivity

That's not really what I'm getting at here. In my opinion though, if you review games, you shouldn't be doing it on just one platform. It's a career, you should take it seriously and try to be objective. This means that the same person should be doing the review from an outlet on each platform. These are called standards. Is this an unrealistic observation? Perhaps but it only proves how subjective the review industry is and how a predisposed bias has no place in a field like that.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/bioshock

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/bioshock

PS3 meta - 94%, 51 reviews

360 meta - 96%, 88 reviews

As I mentioned previously, the only valid arguement could be because of in game performance.

Literally the same case for mass effect andromeda, but still scored lower on PS4 despite more reviews. Some consistency would be nice.

Lmao plz tell me you're not serious ^^ 23 critics on X1, 41 on PS4. And Playstation focused outlets gave the game a generally lower score than their Xbox counterparts. 2 Xbox centric outlets gave it a 90+... So it has nothing to do with the game performing better on X1, just... you know, colors and tastes.

Its not weird if you look at actual reviews and who those reviews come from. Why would a random Xbox centric reviewer care about how well it compares to the PS4 version? 

The Xbox version is also higher than the PC version. Which is the definitive version of the game. This is normal when you look at the amount of reviews. Less reviews = more fluctuation in the score.

I know it has nothing to do with the game performing better on X1, because it flat out performs worse. Which is why I said that it's a case of bias. If you look literally one post up from your reply you'll see a counter example of a game that had more reviews that still scored higher on the 360. Bioshock. And there are numerous examples of this. I also tried making the case that a review site shouldn't be aligned with any one brand. That's also bias. In fact this is all covered in my previous posts. 

A few percentage points difference isnt inconsistent.