My only criticism at this point is them not handing out lower scores more frequently, to help separate high ranked games from one another.  We're at the point where if a game rates below 70 on Metacritic, then it's seriously flawed and may even suck for some - when 70 "should" represent an alright game (which now, sits at low 80's rated games). Where as movies that rate in the 60's are considered positive reviews!

Now, while I do agree with there being flaws, I do not believe reviewers are stupid and do not represent a good benchmark for taste, because they do.  I do on occasion find myself disagreeing with reviewers on some games - but not many.  That's for your better judgment to decide, just like every other industry.  I feel the scores just need to be scaled properly - and I feel they've felt enough heat for the GTA4 fiasco to make that mistake again.

Because once again the scores don't matter. I told you I read the reviews to see how good the game can be. Them giving Forza 3 a 10/10 doesn't mean it's a perfect game and it wouldn't matter whether it got a 9 or a 10 from them. All I'm interested in is what they thought of the game.

But I'm not saying TSA is the most unbiased, etc whatnot. I'm just saying they're a good read when it comes to reviews. Other review sites I read frequently are Joystiq, Eurogamer and here, VGC because from what I read from time to time, they usually good, informative reviews. Sometimes I may not agree with what they wrote because just because they saw one aspect of a game not good enough, doesn't mean I find it not good enough as well.

Another example, TSA gave God of War III a 9 and gave GOW Collection a 10/10 because the reviewer thought GOW I and II were better than III. Well that's good for them because for all I care, their review of GOW III was very solid and mostly reflected my views on GOW III except for the fact that I found GOW III the best out of the trilogy.

I certainly didn't hope to achieve anything from this other than for people to have a read of it.

And remember I never said trust these guys over all others. Just that people should have a full read of this review and just to see that scores from one person doesn't matter. Just read. There's something to take out from that review, meaning some good info to take in.

I think you need to do a little self-reflection right here.  It is we, as hardcore gamers, that need to understand what these reviews are all about.  They review the game as it is right out of the box, get in and play.  You're making th assumption that the majority of gamers in the world, will have a good chunk of time to sit down with a game and scour its features.  This is a gross misjudgment, as the realm of casual gaming is getting larger everyday.

I feel the out-of-the-box first impression reviews are legitimate to make, especially to a person who doesn't plant themselves in front of a game for hours at a time.  Sure, plenty of people do in fact do this, but now - there are an increasing amount of gamers that don't.  

So don't hate on them too much, they're trying to cater to two crowds at once, all while trying to get reviews to gamers as soon as possible - before the game is out too long.

I don't think that matters as much as you think. The first impressions need to be taken note of and if negative will likely bring down the overall score of the game and tone of the review. However, to not test and review all the features results in a poor review as your not reviewing the product fully so you can't make an informed commentary even to the casual gamers.

How can you recommend or review a game to people (including casual gamers) when you're ignorant of half of the games' content? The only way to cater to everyone is to test out all features and explain what works, what doesn't and the impressions of the game from beginning to end. To do otherwise shows a lack of journalistic integrity and presents misinformation and half-truths to the reader.