I see your point but I still think it leaves the scores too top heavy.  There isn't much room to work with school grade mentality.  You basically have 6-10 to work with considering anything under 6 is supposed to be crap.  I think the 1-5 scale is much better but it seems like most have abandoned that scale in favor of 1-10.

re·tard·ed

adjective, ri-ˈtär-dəd

slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress

No. A score cannot be retarded, that makes no sense.  But I suppose you were getting at the derogatory term meaning mental retardation.  That also makes no sense, but you were probably getting at those providing the scores.  I find it unlikely that many reviewers are mentally handicapped.  It's a bit more likely that most people have differing points of view, and there will often be extreme differences of opinion.  Of course this is all just rational thought.  Maybe more effort could go into understanding where the strong opinions of others come from.  Some will be fair, and others not so much.  But it's our obligation to pay attention and put common sense to work in order to realize how well-written a reviewer's statements are.  That way we can pay more attention to the reviews that are done well, and base our purchasing decisions on those.  Reviewers have their job, but so do we.  If we forget the function that reviews have for the general consumer, we'll all just end up saying 'all reviews are worthless' simply based on a few that we dont' agree with.  People on both ends of the spectrum need to have a bit more common sense or threads with titles like this one will seem like an intelligent outlet.

No, stupid question..
Every human makes his own opinion but most reviewers don't give game bad score just because they didint like it.
And nowadays people want the best.Normal/average is not good enough unless game has something special that makes ups the flaws (bad graphics,bugs,short,no multiplayer etc).Most reviewers give a game 6-7 if it has all normal stuff in control but misses the unique mark of all thousands games that they have played in the past.

I think people view a 10 in the wrong way. It does not mean the product is perfect with no flaws. That would mean there would never be any 10 given ever, and then what would be the point of a 1-10 scale? It just means, perhaps, that the game is an example of what a game of a certain genre should strive to be like. All of its pros vastly outweighs any of its cons. I do think review scores are inflated, but I also think some games deserve a 10, just like so many movies get 4 out of 4 stars.

There are a few issues here.. There's the reviewer side, and the fan side. Most reviewers, as I'm aware, review games on a 1-10 scale. The reason you see a high average review is because of the game selection (reviewers very often don't review shitty games since their audience doesn't care about them either).

Then you have the fan side. From what I've seen, they're the ones who are interpreting the scores the way you described. They're the ones who think a 6 is utter shit and unplayable and cry when their game receives that score. I don't think it reflects wrongly on reviewers but rather the gamers.

No one wants to see their favored franchises reviewed less than competitors. Hence the cry from gamers when their favored franchises review in the 70's or lower.

As far as a correlation between review score and unit sales go, there has been proven by data before that there is one. Higher reviewed games perform better. This isn't supposed to show any sort of causal relationship, but rather shows that review aggregates do seem to correlate with what consumers enjoy. That shows that reviewers are doing a measurably well job at what they do. At least when you average them all together.

( I just re-read your OP and I think you actually agree with my points. If so, I'll restate again that the reason I think there is such outcry over moderate review scores is because fans want to see their franchises doing THE BEST, and they flip out at the thought that the things they prefer are "just okay").

Reviews aren't flawed, they're just useless, really. They always have been.

First, a number score means nothing for the exact reasons said here: everyone has a different idea of what each number means. Arguing the merits of what 5 and 7 mean is more or less pointless when opinions always vary.

Second, it's a a not well kept secret that a lot of review places will have their future review copies pulled if they dare to give low scores to specific groups. It's come out more than once and even became a thing on Twitter during the debacle with Duke Nukem Forever and a company associated with/hired by 2K outright saying that those giving low reviews are risking their future prospects for more reviewer releases. ( Have a link for it: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2011/06/duke-nukems-pr-threatens-to-punish-sites-that-run-negative-reviews/ ) And this doesn't even count the fact that they have to tiptoe around the groups that happen to be sponsoring their site at the time.

Reviews haven't been useful in ages, assuming they ever have been. They're the opinions of people who are thrown a game and told to see what they think, no more or less. There will always be bias based off of genre, personal preferences, monetary influences, ensuring future review copies and even console that the product happens to be on.

People who think a game gets a low score need to take a breath and consider the following:

10/10: Get this game even if you don't like the genre. It's one of the best games of the year, not just in the it's genre.
9/10: If you've ever enjoyed a game in this genre you'll like this.
8/10: A great game, fans of the genre will have fun.
7/10: Fun game with a few flaws. If you're not a fan of the genre this won't change your mind.
6/10: An above average game with some flaws, but worth checking out.
5/10: Moderate to hardcore fans of the genre will find enjoyment, casual fans of the genre may want to rent first.
4/10: Only the most hardcore fans will want to try it, casual fans shouldn't bother.
3/10: Lots of flaws, don't bother unless you're really dying for new game in the genre.
2/10: So flawed that even the most hardcore fan won't be able to find any enjoyment.
1/10: Unplayable garbage.

Why created a different thread when your point is very similar to mine? Couldn't you just have replied in my thread instead?

I guess the title gave you that idea but my thread only used RE6 as a reference point for pretty much the same debate but as long as the subject is discussed I'm cool with it.

I think its because of all our school grading systems. I never get complemented for my 7/10 and 5/10 homework assignments, but I sure do get them alot.