To be honest, even though it was the recipient of some pretty questionable reviews (the IGN one in particular - super short and with every single category an identical 7.5? Every damn one? Just lazy...) if it gets this level of controversy with American sites giving it lower scores, I'm happy for it because it will raise awareness about the game. I'd bet that some of those 600 commenters had not heard of the game before or considered buying it, and now may well do so. So, good for the game, really.
Anyway, at this point, video game scores have become a bit of a sick joke. Skyrim getting 90s with massive technical problems on the PS3 was just un-fucking believable, and Mass Effect 3's reviews being soooo out of sync with the reality of what die hard series fans thought about the game....
Unfortunately most of the press scores Western games in accordance with the level of hype surrounding them. It seems to me that reviewers put their fanboy hats on rather than their critical hats - their job is more about getting people excited for the game and going to fancy pre-launch events than accurately critiquing every aspect of it - more of a PR role than a critic.
Luckily we have more gameplay videos, demos and forum impressions than ever available to us these days, and so we can make judgements for ourselves. It's unfortunately the mainstream appeal that gets affected by big outlet's scores, and so niche games undeservedly get bitten on the ass, or "AAA" (ugh) games get a free pass, and this creates a harder environment for smaller games to find mainstream success.
