Here's a reason to screw scores:
1. Any scoring system with 20 or 100 different levels (like most gaming sites use) is ridiculous and impractical. There is no real difference between a 0.1 and a 4.9; all you need to know is that the game sucks. There is no difference between a 6.5 and an 8.0 either; you just need to know the game is solid, but flawed. Any more than about 5 levels only creates confusion and makes reading the review a must to even vaguely grasp the reviewer's opinion.
And a couple reasons to ignore the majority (but not all) reviews completely.
2. Gaming journalism is, let us say... very shady. A journo who has been flown around to several all-expense-paid events over 18 months leading up to the launch of a game is essentially incapable of giving that game a fair review.
3. Gaming journalism is even more shady. In the past few months, we've seen score embargoes placed on both Madden 2008 and Manhunt 2. There were no doubt reviewers who had to mark up their review scores, some with no choice to withhold a review for awhile.
"[Our former customers] are unable to find software which they WANT to play."
"The way to solve this problem lies in how to communicate what kind of games [they CAN play]."
Satoru Iwata, Nintendo President. Only slightly paraphrased.
