i agree with you, i just watched the ign GT5 final impression, and they were basically saying it was a disappointment that the game hardly changed, after all the game is a sim racer, what did they expect? how can you bring something new to a sim racer other than new cars and features such as race modes and various online races. i think they are looking too deep when reviewing games in most cases

It's because video games don't have a difference between entertaining, but not good, and truly good video games. This is perfectly represented this generation with games like CoD, Uncharted, GoW3, etc. getting ridiculously high scores despite them being very mediocre games. Entertaining and fun yes, but they are also very mediocre as far as games go. They are basically the equivalent of 300, the movie, yet gamers are too immature, naive, ignorant, and in some cases just plain old stupid to realize the differences. Then they try to push the whole "oh it's only your opinion" type of argument if you somehow insult their game of choice. That is laughable because I cannot name other entertainment mediums where such a pisspoor argument is actually considered valid in any way, shape, or form when talking about quality.

Reviewers are jsut an extension of gamers and so reviews suffer from the same thing.

The biggest problem with game reviews is that almost all reviewers are not trully journalists or even journalists at all. They were/are gamers that found themselves playing games for a living.

That's why there are so many fanboys among them which write acording to their tastes/hates and not the value of the game.

And, unfortunately, that won't change anytime soon... with some notable exceptions, of course.

Reviewers suck. I think I've said everything I need to say beyond that in the two editorials on reviews I've written for this site.

link please? I like your posts mostly. It should be an interesting read.

Some of the issues with the ratings is that movies have been on a 4 star scale.  So each time you loose even half a star it's 12.5% so you won't have many movies in the 90s because unless it gets 4 stars it will be below it.  Another thing is everyone can watch a movie.  You just need to sit watch and listen.  Playing a game requires you to be active and involed and doing something. Every movies reviewer can watch movies even if it's not there favorite genre while to get someone to review a game they would need to be more than just a little familiar with it, and usually that means they do enjoy it and would be more likly to play.  I'm now interested in checking out and seeing how reviews compair for games everyone can pick up an play easily and games that require a certain type of gamer. 

I'm by no means saying that the review system doesn't have it's flaws just that to try and single out video games is a bit off.  You should go by what they say not the numbers they give.

The difference is in what is considered a "good" score just like the original post says... but it's not that the reviewers that need to mature IMO - it's the gaming public that they're indeed SERVING.

Part one from 2008:
http://gamrfeed.vgchartz.com/story/1124/this-one-goes-to-eleven-the-review-system-is-broken-amp-gta-proves-it/

The followup in 2010:
http://gamrfeed.vgchartz.com/story/7514/when-it-comes-to-review-scores-gamers-are-part-of-the-problem/

The Rotten Tomatoes system is thoroughly useless. I loved Big Momma's House 2 (5%) and was almost bored to death by Another Year (100%). No review will be agreed with by everyone.

That's not the point though. RT doesn't allow for a middle ground. Either you liked the movie, or disliked it. Opinions aren't that simple. You will probably have liked some parts of the movie, and not liked others. You may have disliked the movie, but appreciated that others will like it, or vice versa. You may be recommending the movie to people who like a certain type of film.

It just about works with film, because you sit in a hall for two hours and watch. There isn't a lot of scope for subjectivity, really. What makes a good film? Good writing. Good acting. Good special effects. Good cinematography. With a game, it's different. Shadow of the Colossus looked like crap, had useless controls, was thoroughly incomprehensible, and involved climbing on giants and stabbing them until they died...sixteen times. And yet it's one of the greatest games ever made. Why? Because it just is.

GTAIV was what started the backlash agaisnt reviews id say, it had almost perfect reviews from everywhere like IGN and Gamespot. And they were paid to give that game a 10.

Fans are so agaisnt it because its not perfect its not a 10. It deserved 8's.