I think the reviewer would be better working in a factory. It is a fact now: whatever SE will do with the Final Fantasy games there will always be some retarded bashing it for a reason or another. FF XIII-2 adds many elements that were missing in FF XIII and still I read reviews putting it down for those same elements. This is an extract of few points I have read around:

• FF XIII is missing the cities!!
• Come on FF XIII-2 towns are so 20 years old.
• FF XIII is too linear!
• FF XIII-2 story is disrupted (sure it is. You can jump from a place/time to another now, you moron!)
• There are too many cutscenes in FF XIII
• There are not enough cutscenes in FF XIII-2
• FF XIII-2 music is best ever (IGN)
• FF XIII-2 music makes me throw out (some other jerk)
• FF XIII-2 story doesn't really end (but that doesn't seem to be an issue with Assassin's creed)
• FF XIII-2 has long loading times (yeah. Streaming out directly from the BR disc. Skyrim, which has a mandatory full install is awful on that and many other sides, and it still gets above 90/100 in this very same site).

Consistency != uniformity. A point of semantics, but a point well worth mentioning in this case. Though arguments over reviewing standards are arguments of the sort that need a lot of groundwork laid out so that debaters are not arguing past one another.

I would state that, conceding the point that review scores have an intrisic worth simply due to the mass belief that they do have intrinsic worth (although i personally may not believe in the worth of such scores), then consistency amongst reviewers amongst reviews across time should be a desirable aspect of gaming publications.

in fact uniformity would be actively bad as that would mean you could only get one point of view on a game so there would be no point in anyone writing a review, you might as well just just have one review and post it on every site. If people just want one point of view they should just find a reviewer that has the point of view and just read those reviews. For people that want to actually get a good broad perspective on the game then a wide range of reviews written by people with a wide veriaty of perspectives is nothing but good. 

Reviewers should not be expected to service the game's meta score or reach some form of consensus, that is not what they are there for, they are writing a review to inform the reader of their perspective on the game. 

I'd say it's actually more fair than most other reviews, as unlike the majority of websites, vgchartz writers are brave enough not to give games inflated scores just because they're from a big franchise.

FFXIII-2 deserves a 5.4.

I don't really know how the general reviewing scene has handled the game, but I think our reviewer here made it clear what his likes and dislikes were, and made the score seem justified. A review only reflects the opinion of one person, and as such you can agree or disagree, as can every other reviewer out there.

Not so. When we accept that a single publication can have multiple reviewers we must also accept that they bring their different perspectives to the table, and when they do that we can only hope that they present their own views on a game as fully and truthfully as they can. If that means that one reviewer sees FFXIII as a 9 and another sees it as a negative seventeen, well, that needs to be presented. Honesty is more important than uniformity - "consistency" has too positive a connotation, here, and could only apply within the narrow band of a single person's reviews.

No. This review isn't just a personal opinion : it is the score that gamrreview/VGchartz, a well-established and respected website, gave to Final Fantasy XIII-2 regarding its overall quality. By entrusting this review to someone who has nothing but contempt for FFXIII, and attacks the game on all possible subjective issues (music, design, etc.), gamrreview obviously poorly managed it and misinforms readers.

A review is meant to be: I had a personal opinion on the game, but let me attempt to be objective so I can inform people what /their/ impression is likely to be if they bought it, and hence help them come to a conclusion on whether they should. Attacking a game on specific issues only the reviewer cares about doesn't serve that.

The review was fair but the game is competent and entertaining to most potential buyers despite its flaws.

That is not what a review is "meant" to be. A reviewer must necessarily speak to his own values first; one cannot presume the values of other people.

And I wouldn't have figured you the sort to actually buy this game. I mean, not that the review itself suggests the game isn't competent or entertaining, but this game just seems way, way outside your comfort zone.

The review here started as a 10 cum laude and ended up as a 5.4. he wrote that the first 5 hours were even above his expectations. All positive elements that are constant in the game (like the gorgeous visuals, the pretty consistently good music) didn't degrade. How can a perfect 10 transmute into a 5.4? The technical and artistical execution as usual is perfect. Ony that deserves AT LEAST a 7/10. Did it get too easy? Maybe he enjoyed the fighting so much that he overlevelled. And then it doesn't matter, in all FF games fighting the common enemies are just a matter of holding X. Not even that in FF XII. There were, are and most likely will always be a waste of time. Just good for grinding. then we face the bosses and that's a whole different story. I'm playing FF VI right now, it's just the same.

I may accept the critics about the story. Even if I am a bit confused, since there seem to be 8 (+1 secret?) ending. I don't know yet. But I do not accept the complaining about "this is maybe a 5 hour game artificially inflated to 25 hours thanks to repetition". First because I hardly believe it is true, I suppose just the cut scenes are 5 hours long if not longer, secondly because part of the fun in the FF games is to maximize everything, get all weapons, monsters, etc. In other words grinding. Also exploration and enjoy the visuals. From that point of view it does deliver like all FF games do. Anything below a 7/10 is an insult to one of the best development teams in the world. Not to mention that 54/100 is 25 points below the Metacritic average (79). Sorry, but I don't buy the "out of the crowd" crap. That to me just shows the reviewer inability to judge a good game. Also because it doesn't fit with what he wrote.