That’s really interesting and unfair to say the least. There seems to be a lot of debate over the validity of review scores these days with people being payed to give favourable reviews and all this bias that seems to be going around.
My opinion is like yours, people expect more from the 360, maybe it’s seen as a more promising console and people expect it to have better games then it does, or maybe they just have realistic expectations and the ps3 reviewers are a little on the ‘in the clouds’ side of things when it comes to review scores. The fact that it has a huge library shouldn’t be affecting the scores but if it is then it’s just showing even more corruption in the reviewing industry. I really think that the 360 reviewers are either more down to earth then the ps3 reviewers, or they run the games through a harder reviewing process and review the game for all that it is. The ps3 reviewers might even want to push the popularity of their favourite system with greater scores. Kind of like the way supermarkets get competitive with food prices. But we can speculate until the wii looses its popularity and may never come close to nailing the real reason.
So I think I settle on the idea that there is more bias towards giving the ps3 higher scores to boost its popularity, a bit of a conspiracy. The same way teachers give their favourite students slightly better marks and the teachers who play no favourites give even marks. To get it right the same person who rates the 360 version needs to have a meeting with the person who rates the ps3 version so they can discus realistic scores based on the pros and cons of the game being on each system.
If at first you don't succeed, you fail
