I think the score is fine; I'm a Tekken fan, but there's no way I'm buying this after reading a couple of reviews. Yes, I read the reviews, not just looked at the scores.

The problem with the review was that it wasn't very informative in terms of the new stuff - specifically the demo and the movie. I already played Tekken Tag Tournament and still regularly do at my local Cici's Pizza, so I already know how it plays like and what it contains. But I didn't know what the other stuff was like. What the movie was about, what the demo showed and contained, etc. You did mention the demo had the four characters from the movie, but didn't specifically named them. Maybe you did while you wrote about the movie, but they had you remove it for some reason.

And the noobs love Eddy Gordo; you can google Eddy Gordo noob, and you'll see a bunch of topics about it. There are some experienced players who know how to control Eddy fairly well however.

As for the topic on hand, gamers will always whine about the low scores and always yell out some excuses like "biased against JRPGs" and "reviewer didn't get it." As long as the reviewer justifies his opinion, then I don't see a problem with it. They shouldn't be scared of the backlash or giving a heavily hyped game a low score. I hate that some sites (like IGN for example) give out 9s like free candy.

I know Noobs love Eddie Gordo the same way Noobs like Maxi...button mash to cool-looking excellence.

But like I said, in my time with tekken I've liked about a half dozen characters and my love for Eddie has nothing to do with noobishness, but because I love the style. my favorite in Tekken 4 was Hworang, loved how he switched feet and styles on a whim, making for some awesome combos. Law was also kind of awesome.

and I agree, I hate high scores. I've only ever given two games super high scores since reviewing for the site, one of which in retrospect deserves a slightly lower score (Resistance 3 deserves perhaps an 8.6 or 8.7, tops, I gave it a 9 because...well, I was really overjoyed at the fact that it had health and a weapon wheel, not to mention the game's presentation, controls, length, and all that jazz was really good.) I stand by my Dungeon Defenders review and think that should be higher now that I've spent almost 100 hours on it without growing bored of it.

...You were one of those people! I remember you called the Eurogamer or Edge (I can't remember which) review base attention whoring meant to do nothing but get hits!

Edit: It was Eurogamer!

I agree with this, my average is 7.1. If I played more games I didn't like that score would crash. I agree with you on skyrim though. :P.

But for instance Metacritic says the average game score review is 6.9 which is really high. Because thats supposed to take into account all the games that most people wouldn't play like you said.

Plain and simple fanboyism,

we all make mistakes, and in my defense, I was mostly just trying to 'agree' with the crowd. Having played it, an 8 is about what it deserves. 

That isn't a defense! Giving in to mob mentality means you can't in good conscience complain when that same mentality turns against you. You are poking a bear with a piece of wood that has feces on the end of it. When the bear wakes up and slaps you with your doodoo stick, you don't get to go "Not cool man! Not cool!"

That metaphor could use some work but come on.

because people can be retarded and care too much about other peoples opinions, in this case the reviewer. They need to get over and just play their damn games.

Because they link their self steem, or whatever you call it, to the game. Low-scoring the game feels the same as low-scoring them. It's not very different from people who project their desired self-image into a pet and then how-speshul-my-doggie-is, seeing proof of their love everywhere when dogs have no demonstrable sentience and lack ape emotions.

In the end, we love some flaw scrubbing, and worse, need other people to agree with us.

I don't give a shit about scores in general, I do however take notice when something doesn't seem quite right, like when something is said that we know to be blatantly false or when a game gets slammed because it isn't what the reviewer wanted it to be. The American IGN site giving Football Manager 2009 2/10 because the reviewer completely missed the point of the game is the classic example I always point towards, but thankfully that review was eventually rescinded.

The problem is that those kind of inconsistencies generally don't pop up in high scoring reviews, and so a legitimate problem will get lost in a cloud of hate focused entirely on the score.