LOL, not exactly, though that does seem to be how it's turned out.

basically it goes:

Point 1 - Reviewers are limited to giving a score to a game based on their interests and what they place the most value on a game, sales of other differing game shows that this score is not valid for everyone. Since GTA IV has gotten excellent scores for games, it makes it more apparent what specific fields are given the most value when determining the score a game is given.

Point 2 - There are a lot of threads comparing PS3 and 360 versions. GTA IV is yet another of the numerous PS3&360 games that has had each version compared to try to determine which system is superior. However it also felt like these arguments were even more numerous and vocal than previously experienced.
If one system is not recognized as superior to the other, then both will be treated as being much the same and the majority of games will end up being designed to be used on both, which will make it difficult for games to take advantage of the strengths of the system which results in neither system being able to demonstrate its superiority, thus continuing the vicious cycle.

 I have some questions for you then.

If the system of reviewing is off, how would you change it? And if you did change it, how would you see these games you have mentioned above rate against each other? Or in your new system, would they not rate against each other at all?

Why did this topic only happen to come up now, when GTA was reviewed higher then any game before it? Is it this one incident that caused you to feel the system is broken, or did you feel this way when SSBB or SMG got incredibly high scores as well?

Actually, I've long since known the rating system is flawed. Reviews themselves are still tolerable, but a single number that is trying to evaluate games within a market that has such a diverse and often conflicting set of interests is just not feasible. GTA IV was merely a game that has gotten a perfect score which makes it more clear where reviewers primary interests are. I've already suggested various ways in which a rating system could be handled, depending on what level of interaction you're allowing from the consumer.

One of my ideas was the Wii Review Channel. The setup was originally intended to be specifically to handle the diverse consumer group that the Wii has been intended to target. However the basic premise; that the way you rate games yourself will act as a filter to find rating made by people with similar interests to your own, could potentially be set up for general use as well.

So simply put, when you are looking at the rating of a game, it will first look at games you've rated already, and look for people who have given similar reviews to yours in order to create an average review for that game. Of course, people that have rated games completely differently will be more likely to be filtered out and not used to create the average.

Of course, that becomes difficult to implement without the user first interacting.

Another possible method would be to essentially attach a name to every rating such as "battle grit 10" or "fantasy adventure 7" or "artistic puzzle 9" so that the game is first given a rough category, and then scored for its quality within that category. This would hopefully let reviewers rate the quality of the game on the intention of its focus.

The problems with this would still be finding people to review games that could actually do that. I'm not about to pass that off as an easy thing to do. It's not as much of an issue with an open community with filters like my wii review channel suggestion, but asking one person to essentially do that same job alone is usually asking far too much.

the only other solution that can really be offered, or perhaps used to combine with the previously mentioned idea, is to fall back to a more simplified rating system, such as A, B C, D, F and combine that with a date, like 08.3 = March of 2008.

C is an average game for its genre. D is a game that has frustrating problems, but is still playable, F is for games that have problems making it nearly or completely unplayable. B is for games that show quality, and A is for games that raise the bar for the entire genre

so for instance, Wii sports would be A-06.11, GTA IV would be A-08.5, as they both raised the bar for their specific genres.

Grey I think I remember you mentioning something like this in the past. I can't remember when or where though. I agree with this idea whole-heartedly.

edit: Sou desu ka! I saw the link you just mentioned in your post after mine... ^_^

reviewers:

as long as the controls dont suck, gamers still have a huge advantage. it is ingrained in us to change to the situation. gamers will innovate in order to win.

reviewers are "hardcore." they know its their audience and they do preach to the choir. i also happen to think that they mostly dont like new casual games, because they are used to games with depth instead of all flash like most new ones are. yes im implying that casual games can have depth (saying like gta and smash. pick up and play, but so much game there)


now to comment on brawl. brawl maybe deserves a 9. there are just too many problems and it isnt as fun as melee (although fun is relative). the two things that get me are ice climbers and camping. campy characters just plain win and the ice climbers are broken. chudat showed how to kill using ic chain grab, so there isnt really an excuse. camping characters should have been exposed during beta. tripping is also one of the worst additions to any series i have ever heard of.

 Reading comprehension FTW. I never dismissed Ocarina of Time, it's a great game.

Are you seriously using the logic that because you can't figure out how to deal with these tactics, that the game deserves a lower rating? and what the heck are you talking with camping? That only works if you're playing a stock match and are going up against retarded opponents who don't notice that you're camping. If you try camping in a timed match, you won't get any kills and even if you're not last, you won't get first. As for the ice climbers, DON'T LET THEM GRAB YOU. Air based attacks and quick dodging will deal with a lot of this. Sorry, but I just don't see how it being more likely for a skilled player to beat a novice player is something to complain about.  Also the tripping is designed to act as a deterent to spamming moves. still though, brawl is way off topic, if you want to continue that, switch to private messages or go to the brawl thread to complain. I'm sure you'll find plenty of people who are entirely capable of dealing with the issues you've raised.

Just remove scores all together.