Most if not all of them, just because they are OPM doesnt mean they are significantly biased towards the playstation brand

Now what was the point of you responding to my post and saying "uhmm.. you mean you think 85+ = AAA".

Read what you quoted... it clearly says "85+ score in my opinion = AAA".

You tried to correct me by stating exactly what I stated.

*sigh*

Anyways, 80/85/90/etc... don't mean shit anyways. It is all about whether or not the one purchasing the game finds it to be a great game. One my all time favorite titles has an aggregated score of 67.

that's cool, but still the question remains: what the hell is a "muscular" experience?

So wait... they are reviewing only Playstation games, and the fact that they only do that does not point at all at the fact that they LIKE Playstation games?

Being biased doesn't just mean being a rabid fanboy. It means preferring one thing in front of another. Everyone has bias. I would say it's fair to assume that anyone that has gotten themselves a job at a Playstation magazine must enjoy Playstation games. Just like I assume that anyone who is employed as a videogame critic enjoys videogames.

How deep these biases goes can be questioned, and I would assume it changes from person to person and even case to case. But by putting the label 'Official' on their paper, they earn my mistrust.

Im saying they arent biased to the point that they give 10's to everything that says playstation on it, Im saying that they are regular reviewers that give a score based on how good a game is to them. They only review PS games because they are OPM.

Doesn't OPM scores usually fall in line with the scores given out by sites like 1UP, IGN, Eurogamer, etc. with OPM on some occasions actually giving lower scores?

If so, then how are the untrustworthy for giving something like an 8.5 or 9 but if IGN gives that same 8.5 or 9 they are trustworthy?

I JUST HATE EARLY REVIEWS!

@Bolded, I totally agree.

@The rest, you forgot a 'should'. "85+ score SHOULD in my opinion = AAA"

I was picky about how you phrased it.  You basically said that you consider all 85+ games as AAA. Which makes no sense, since the definition of 85+ games is AA. It's kinda like saying: Everyone thinks this is red, but my opinion is that it's green. As I said, I was being picky, maybe I should be nicer in the future.

But even though one should not consider aggregated scores as written in stone, an arbitrary division of them can sometimes be useful. And using 80, 85 and 90 as the edges of that division is as good as any, and better than most, ways to do it. That's all I'm saying.

#1.

Glad you agree.

#2. 

Are you kidding me? Why would I have to put "should" in with "in my opinion?" I wasn't saying what I think it "should" mean. I was saying what AAA means to me, although it does change from time to time. I find plenty of games scored in the 70's that I felt were leaps and bounds better than some of the 90+ rated games out there.

You stated what you stated the first time around and I let you know that it was the same exact thing I said. Now you come back with this? To go with it you have a long explantion about what "everyone else" thinks AAA means, like I even care what they think, I make up my own mind when it comes to my games.

Just admit you were wrong the first time around.

Edit - All of which I just scratched out can be summed up in papflesje's post.

Thank you very much papflesje.