Let me paraphrase what you said.
You said that if a game released on PC was released on 360, it would get higher reviews. (Your example was Spore)
You said reviews on PC are much strict and harsh than console reviews.
PC reviewers are "perfectionist pricks"
Console reviewers are "fairies"

My point is then,
Orange Box was released on PC and got a metacritic of 96
Orange Box was released on 360 and got a metacritic of 96
By your logic, Orange Box on 360 should have been HIGHER.
BUT,
It's not.

TOB has flaws on the 360, thats why it didnt get higher. It was also rated on a curve, same with the PS3 version.

A console game that receives a 100% rating would be equal to around 75 - 80% on PC.

BAH, FLAWS?
LOL.

Now, I'm not talking about higher resolutions and the such, but the experience was ported over FLAWLESSLY.

There is no reason why PC games get rated more harshly than console games.

This is the case with Orange Box, and that's why scores reflect the quality of the game regardless of platform.

Which leads to me saying, scoring of the games I mentioned earlier are not "tainted" or whatever

BTW, that was your 9000th post.

perfect? your joking right? your talking to someone who can see the difference between 30FPS and 40FPS. There are graphical hitchs throughout. Dont kid yourself. I rate curved on this site. I'll admit it. If i was to rate GT5:P right now I would give it a 9/10. Rating GTI Racing I would give it a 8/10. Putting them both head to head I would give GTI Racing the win instantly.

But, ssj12, at the end of the day,
Can you honostly call Halo an average game or series?
Meanwhile it does everything better than all those games mentioned before
including Resistance, Doom, Quake etc.
Regardless if it's consoled.

Ya, it does everything 10+ years after all these games. Resistance is average too. All I said is it has a better story and weapons. I said nothing about it being any less average then Halo.

Of couse it does everything 10 years after all these games.

But, what makes it ABOVE average is the fact is that it does so MUCH more.

Yes, it does whatever those games did, but it added a whole lot that really can't be denied.

Refer to the list I brought earlier of all the things that Halo did and does, that NO OTHER game had done or even did to this date, regardless of PLATFORM.

It does everything those games did AND more, much more.

It even refined at what those games did, I guess.

This is exactly why it isn't average!

Combine that whole list you threw at me, COMBINE it all, and Halo does more than all those.

It really does. Halo brought FPS to a whole other level,

BTW,The metacritic scores I posted also included the console scores.
And none of them are a jump in score.

Are we talking Halo or halo 3? If we are talking map editors hello 7 years ago.  If you talking graphics of that level hello 8 years ago. If you want your console graphics and FPS gameplay thrown down the toilet see Crysis Warhead.

And for your little list:

4 player co-op was done by Resistance before Halo 3. Owned much? co-op was never a major deal till it came to consoles. PC gamers tend to like going solo. Its like showing your a man able to handle the tough times ahead. Co-op is for people who can't shooter straight. Still it has been done in Tom Clancy games before and many others.

Single player? my god does this make a game now? I guess Quake isnt there anymore.. oh wait.

Balanced maps, been there done that.

Custom games? how custom? modded custom, setting custom? UT handles both of these quite well since the first game.

Custom characters.... yawn.

Switching gametypes? are you kidding me. Why this listed?

matchmaking... Battlefield 2...many others... any FPS that had ranks.

Face the fact I can rip apart your entire list. The point is you cannot argue the fact all of this has been done.