To be perfectly fair, a good majority of "pro reviews" these days are also essentially meaningless.

The hair example may have been a bad a example, but it currently holds a 49 on the user score, and an 86 for the metascore; obviously something's not right. The same can be said for a lot of other games. A lot of people who do not like the games simply give it a zero. I cannot think of one game that truly deserves a zero.

Anybody remember when Sony and MS fanboys nuked the user scores for LBP and Gears of War? I think those were the two games. It was a pretty funny story on here when it happened.

True. Which is why you should look at a whole range of different reviews. I tend to look at one near the top (i.e. high score) and then one near the bottom (as well as some in the middle) just to see which resonates more with me. You cant go wrong if you know the best and worst things about a game (as seen by others of course). 

If people think a game sucks that's ok, but a review is not supposed to be a protest. A review is supposed to be "Non biased" as far as it can go, and you shouldn't be giving bad scores for a game just if others is giving a good one. Also, the amount of games that deserves a 0/10 is incremental, and COD certainly ain't one of them. Repetitive or not, it sure as hell ain't that bad.

 And as a lot of others have stated, a lot of this just boils down to fanboy wars. People can write as many reviews as they want to, but they shouldn't be given such a big role on a major review site when it's just misused for fanboy wars or protests. They could remove the score system, at least for users (they'll never remove it from reviewers) and let them write reviews. 

Can't wait for him to show up!

I can see where you're coming from. But on the other hand, to be perfectly honest, the only reviewers who are obligated whatsoever to be "non-biased", are the pro ones, and a good majority of them haven't been that since, I would argue, the 90s, or early 2000s at the latest. There was a time when gaming magazines like GamePro and EGM could absolutely be trusted to give totally professional, non-biased reviews. In fact their review score systems worked really well, especially GamePro's. But those mags went downhill, and with the rise of the internet, and more and more internet review sites popping up, even sites that were once trusted such as IGN became increasingly less professional in their conduct, and increasingly more "fanboy". It has gotten to the point where, in my honest opinion at least, there are not really any "non-biased" pro reviewers left. They're all just giving their opinions of the game, whether they personally liked them or not, and not just giving you the non-biased FACTS of the game. So.............yeah, it's a pretty miserable scenario all around.

I can't say I disagree with you. But it seems like they don't have a choice. People that reviewed GTA V under 9.0 got death treats. It's just crazy. 

I know. I adressed that point on my first post on this thread. They should just give readers 3 options for rating: recommend, rent, dont recommend. This is because they will always go to the max on min of the scale to try and get their voice heard the loudest. Theres no point in a 10 point scale.

Metacritic users is filled with idiot copy & paste from other user review,trolls,ps fanboys,xbox fanboys,COD haters, butthurt fanboys that can't accept changes. Just look at DmC,most of the COD games & Halo 4 user scores,so many rates it like the game is broken and unplayable when in fact those people didn't even play or touch the game -_-

I only go to metacritic just to look at the movies user scores since most of them written are trustworthy.