In fact, interesting tidbit here, according to metacritic, ME2 is the seventh best game of all time, on PC:

What I want to know is WTF is Out off the Park Baseball, and keeping in mind that on PC, TOB is a compilation of several other sames on the PC available for individual download. Assuming we wibe OotP Baseball(because WTF?), and HL2 off the list(Making ToB number 1, Hallf-Life number 2, and Bioshock/BGII number 3 and 4, on the list, Metacritic is really telling us that Mass Effect 2 is the 5th best game ever made(since as you say, PC gamers have higher standards).

Not bad for a console shared multiplat with a very nearly equal experience on the Xbox 360?

According to reviewers, this is one of the best PC gamers ever made, 5th in fact, assuming we combine HL2 with ToB, and ignore the fluke baseball game with 5 reviews.

I don't think their standards are much higher, perhaps minutely, and 2 points certainly doesn't prove it, considering we are working with 31 reviews for the PC verses 80 something for the 360. The difference in those scores is statistically insignificant, by which I mean, the PC's score is unpredictable assuming we more than doubled the number of reviews that it currently has, but at the very least, it could fall within 2 points either way off its current score. Doubling review scores is not guarnteed to be a 1:1 ratio for its current score, with 31, the sample size is too low(see the baseball game with 5 reviews).

I wonder if Uncharted 2 would have ranked even higher on PC than Mass Effect 2, since it outscored ME2's console score.

You just can't use metacritic for vague generalizations, because its really spinning numbers, and using them to justify your beliefs when it's convinient.

Lately, imho, the PC's library lately has lacked the high profile SP AAA exclusive games that the consoles get on a fairly regular basis. When a multiplat like this comes a long(once every several years, or even once a decade) thumbing an elitist nose at it, due to snobbery and nostalga is not something I believe PC reviewers or entheusiasts would be willing to do.

So, I disagree with you. I think that PC reviewers are generally intelligent people, and though they might have their biases for games that are console multiplats or even ports, they don't have higher standards, and if they do, their games are due to the rigs they are gaming on, and in this case, the game certainly takes advantage of those rigs.

What I'm hearing is that despite a game taking full advantage of a gaming rig, and being better, it still isn't enough to score as high as an inferior version on a console, because PC gaming is just that much better. I don't think anyone would be that snobbish, number one, and number two, that is an argument for a platform(which has strengths and weaknesses just like all other platforms), and not a game, and arguing for a platform, is by definition, biased. Arguing superiority of one console to another is also considered bias, is it not, because like the PC, each console is an apple to anothers orange. These are not apples to apples comparisons, and claiming they are, is either biased and intentionally misleading, or ignorant and moot.

Either way, when arguing for a platform, individual games mean nothing, and its overall library quality that matters, which lately, seems to have been leaning in favor of the HD twins, due to a relative drought of high-budget AAA exclusive or HD-twin exclusive sp titles on the consoles, in my opinion. Holding on to those old titles as paragons of PC exceptionalism and punishing new games due to that nostalgia might hurt game sales for the review driven smart PC crowd on their favorite platform, which is something reviewers should be smart enough to figure out on their on.

You make some fair poins. And yes, PC gamers are snobbish and biased towards their own platform, dissing consoles as a virus of casual noobines and they are partially right to do that. Just look at what consoles did to the FPS genre? Most of the famous PC FPS series like CoD, Battlefield and now MoH have been dumbed down for consoles. I allways laugh my ass off, when someone is even trying to argue about gamepad vs mouse + keyboard combo. The greastest WRPGs have their back catalogue on PC. There are no good RTS strategy games on consoles (well Halo Wars, but it can't compete with PC RTS games).

On the other hand, Mass Effect is game from BioWare, which is a famous, pro PC RPG developer responsible for one of the greatest game series of all time, Baldur's Gate, so the only bias I can see is the positive one. The PC version of ME2 is also better than Xbox version, so no problem there. But there are games on PC, which didn't make it to the consoles, that ME have to be compared to, one example The Witcher. But there is many many more.

Don't get me wrong, ME2 is my favourite RPG of this gen, and in my top 3 with MGS4 and UC2. I love that game, but it isn't perfect, there were things which could've been made better.

having played both the pc version is a long way better

PC games often have more variable aspects that can knock a good game's score down.

Something like no dedicated servers for online play will automatically guarantee a much lower score than the same console game that is commonly known to have P2P support only.

Scalability is another that can hurt a PC game's score. If the hardware requirements are excessively high relative to the complexity of the visuals, or if the low or recommended requirements result in a noticeably reduced experience even though PC games are typically reviewed on mid-high to high end systems.

Also, most games these days are designed with consoles in mind, even when developed on PC platform. Currently it seems that few categories like RTS or MMORPG are designed specifically with the PC in mind from the way the online play is set up, to the m/kb based controls. When you take a console oriented game and don't specifically tailor it to the strengths of the PC, that too can knock the score down in a reviewer's eye.

I have actually played both and given I own a decent gaming rig and a 360, the difference isn't "a long way better" between either version.  I'm sure anyone who reads your posting history though should be able to see your moitives for spreading your FUD though.

Zen pretty much summed up the sensible reasons for the score difference, debate over in that regard imo.

huh?

That's pretty much true for all multiplat games.

I own several games on PC and 360 (Bioshock, Red Faction Guerrilla, Borderlands, Dead Space etc.)

Unless you play the games side by side you won't notice a difference in graphics. Especially when you play console games on a couch several feet away from you HD TV vs. PC games on a monitor in front of you. Modding is almost nonexistent in those games, some of them don't have a multiplayer mode and if they do they're not better. Better controls is subjective.

As for Mass Effect 2, the scores are so similar that there is no better version by just looking at the scores. The PC version only has 36 reviews and I can tell you that some of the magazines (Especially German PC magazines) never give out ultra high scores. Scroll down and you will see PC Games Germany and Gamestar giving the game a 8.8. They never give 10/10 or even close.

The 360 version has around 25 100% reviews, the PC version has 10. Strip those out and I'd imagine the scores would be pretty equal. A perfect score is meaningless anyway- you're essentially saying 'this is the best game of all time, and nothing else can ever beat it'. In addition, a number of those will be 5/5 star reviews and the like, which Metacritic blindly converts to 100%, which is a poor way of aggregating review scores.