This has more or less been the story since the 360 and PS3 entered the market with few exceptions.

PC versions give you better frame rates, higher resolutions and better anti-aliasing, dependent upon individual hardware build being used to play. Lots of scaleability there which is a good excuse to buy good components and upgrade regularly.

Does it really improve the games themselves when they're designed to be played on consoles? A bit subjective, but generally no. They're still the same game. And unless the hardware of a console starts to limit the playability of a game (too much frame tearing, very choppy frame rates, significantly dropped texture detail), the extra resolutions, smoother frame rates, AA and added effects, while nice (assuming you have a decent PC), don't exactly make the same game anywhere near a "generation" better. At the bare minimum, the plus is you pay $10 less on average for the PC version, not that it makes the game better, just cheaper once you have the hardware.

In most cases, it just boils down to personal preference which version to buy/play if you have a decent gaming PC and a console or three. But some games are more suitable for game pads and some are better with a m/kb. Even then, there's a pretty high degree of subjectivity and personal preference involved.

If your gonna list PC FPS games, 2 of those 3 should not be mentioned.  At least throw in Quake, Unreal Tournament, or Tribes.  Makes me think you don't know much about PC FPS gaming.

This happans a lot - look at Halo PC vs Xbox for example.  The fact is PC reviewers will be reviewing vs PC titles as well as PC historic titles.  For example if you've played a while on PC Bioshock wasn't an amazing leap forward but the latest incarnation of a game like System Shock.

As such it's not uncommon for titles to be seen as less amazing on PC.  The fact the scores are so close, and high, shows that on both systems the title is very good.  As a PC gamer myself I often mind myself less impressed than console specific gamers with many titles due to this.  ME2 is really good though.

Reviewers have higher standards on PC.

This. If it's revolutionary on a console, it's very likely to be just iterative on the PC.

IMO it's honestly unfair to compare PC's game catalogue with any single console, since PC has decades worth of back catalogue with excellent backwards compatibility - something no single came console can compete against.

And you could throw in some Counter Strike and Half Life in there as well :D

yeah sorry just played both again PC all the way

How are the controls lacking on the keyboard and mouse? I had no problems with (aside from the Gears of War one button sticky cover issue) it so I'm curious.

Also, my e2160 at stock speed and 8800gt ran the game quite well and looked pretty darn good.

There are many reasons for different scores on the PC, many of which have already been mentioned. Here are a few:

1. PC and Console graphics are judge by a different scale. Consoles hardware is set when the console released, and processing power is the same for the generation. PC processing power is faster every couple of months. Console games do look better every year, but not the huge leaps the PC sees every couple of years. Console games are more likely to get a 10 for graphics, where PC games have a higher bar to get perfect scores on graphics.

ME2 = 10 graphics on the 360 (best looking 360 game)
ME2 = 9 graphics on PC (Crysis on Max setting looks better)

2. Historic grading scale. Console games are judges against other games of the same generation. PC games are judges in a historical context.

ME2 = 10! Best RPG on the 360. System defining RPG!
ME2 = 9.5 One of the best RPGs in the past few years.

3. Different expectations for extras.

For RPGS:
No modding tools = expected on the consoles.
No modding tools = letdown on the PC.

For Shooters:
No dedicated servers = expected on consoles.
No dedicated servers = intense hatred on the PC.

4. Games designed for a PC interface from the beginning score better than games that are designed for a console interface and then ported.

Dragon Age:
PC = 91
PS3 = 87
360 = 86

Mass Effect 2:
PC= 94
360 = 96

Hmm... You are aware that Halo came out on PC 2 years after it released on the Xbox right? For a port of a 2 year old game that had to compete with more recent games I'd say Halo PC scored beter than most ports would under those circumstances. If you want to give good examples use games that are released simultaneously on both PC and consoles (like say... Modern Warfare 2).