@OP:

I blame that infamous knitted hat.

Some people just go by critic reviews too much. I can't tell you how many games the critics haven't liked, that i've loved, but it's alot.

I read that the patch that came out today basically extends the game by 5 hours, so if critics didn't get access to that, I suppose its Sucker Punch's fault for not meeting their deadline.

I am quoting you just so I can stare some more at those melons.

Edit: CURSES! FOILED AGAIN!!

Funny point. You hit the nail with this one as I think that a lot of people look at metacritic.com for their review but in reality those are not really good. Ps. where is the time that an average of 8 was a very good game. I think that because a lot of game journalist are biased to a certain type of game or platform you get very strange reviews.

Yep. I'd expect really professional journalists to be able to tell their own biasses and adjust their scores up or down to counterbalance them, and in extreme cases where they can't overcome them, leave reviews of those games to other less biased colleagues. Also, scores should generally be stricter, with 90-95/100 only for all-round excellent games and 96-99/100 reserved to really everlasting masterpieces, while 80-89/100 could be considered excellence for games that are indeed excellent, but with a more limited appeal, either in time or in user target. This way the n-th edition of annual sports games and FPS, for example, would rarely get more than 89/100 (and their meta should obviously be even lower), but outstanding editions could go beyond 90. I highly esteemed some defunct gaming mags like PC Zone and PC Review for doing it, while I deeply despised magazines that gave away high scores too easily.
PS In my library scores are on average high just because due to limited time and money, and always building my PCs to be low-power consumption and low-noise, so with at most mid-range performances, I almost never buy early and I wait for time to let the real classics emerge before buying.

Luckily for me, whether or not a game was critically acclaimed has never factored into my enjoyment. Arkham Origins didn't get rave reviews and it was one of 2013's best experiences as far as I'm concerned. I'll form my own opinion of inFamous: SS based on my own experiences like I always do--and I sincerely intend to enjoy the fuck out of it.

as many thread lately... 

I suggest to read the IGN review, for the ones who didn't buy the Game yet.  It's a great Game, IGN gave it 8.7/10 !  

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/03/20/infamous-second-son-review

Great reviews don't matter. Bad ones do. To people who want to say the game is bad anyway. I've never actually met a person who's wanted a game but allowed a review to sway their opinion. I'm sure all the people who wanted to buy Infamous won't now because it's rated 8/10 on Metacritic.

Very narrow minded. Nothing like playing Xcom while in your bed when you can't sleep ;). Plus you know.....tablet things.