and you think there would be a difference if reviewers used a different scale ?.....

People would then complain why GT5 only has a 75 and Super Mario Galaxy a 89, while Wii Party is somewhere in the 45-50 area.

It doesn't make any difference, you just need to know that movie scores and gaming scores are on a different scale. Neither of them is better or worse.

the problem with the current game scale is that so many games are rated 90 , and you don't know anymore how to sort which one really deserves that rating and which ones don't. there is an implication at being reviewed 90 : it means the game is very very good.

look at GTA4 getting 100 ratings across the board, despite all the technical issues it has. If you look at that score, you can easily be led to think that the game has no flaws. The 'real' rating of that game should reflect all the issues it has, and should not be just based solely on hype. so many games are reviewed high based on hype alone and not through quality.

I think the industry has problems with how it goes about doing things currently (bribes, the personal issues with games, overhype, anti-console or anti-country games etc.). 

They should just get rid of the scoring system and just stick to the writing.

Final scores rarely ever match the actual review itself.

agreed. a scoring system just doesn't work for games because of overhype and nonsensical fanboyism.

I don't read critic reviews, more often than not its based only on a few hours play time where the reviewer has little to no interest in the genre of the game being reviewed.

What I've found to actually be a fairly decent representation of opinions on a game is in fact the gamespot User reviews. Ignoring the ratings of course, by reading those reviews you actually tend to get an overall better review of a game from multiple people who have played it start to finish.

I'd also say the majority of these reviews are written by fans of the genre of a game they are reviewing and so the points they make, whether pro or con actually tend to be more relevant than the usual critic reviews.

Yup. I agree about the scores being skewed too high as almost every game released since 2006 has been "been there, done that" to me =_=. I stopped looking at scores for reference for a long time. I mostly look at user scores since they make more sense (Not all the time though but fair enough)

I think there's nothing wrong with reviews. The problem relies on people who can't accept their hyped and beloved games just scored a perfectly good score like 8.5, but nothing special and nothing to go Ga-Ga about.

People like that should mature and learn that blaming others to skew things in their flavour isn't the best argumentation.

lol QFT!!  ie.: The Halos and CODs of this world. Nobody ever complains about the same old formula in those reviews! But damn it all to hell if an adventure game like Darksiders or Castlevania copies gamplay "elements" from other games, OH NOES, blasphemy! LOL So much hypocrisy, and MONEY in between.

Is that because of GT5 getting average reviews?