With Pokemon Rumble Blast and Yoshi's New Island. 4.5 is the score that gets the negative review assignment. In Yoshi's Island, there's 3 reviews that get it (4, 5, and 5). I don't get why the 5s are given it whenever Pokemon wasn't assigned th same spread.

Is there some limitation based on average score rather than lowest score?

Edit: I reread everything and I see the 10 points below rule, so it creates small oddities above, but I suppose it works.

Destructoid is so terrible. Look at the scores they've given out.

Jim Sterling (used to be at Destructoid) definitely gave really low scores.  Kid Icarus: Uprising and Mario Kart 7 from Destructoid are his reviews.  They are much lower than just 10 points lower than the average.  

If I didn't already know about that, I would say that those scores are surprising, especially since the reason MK7 got a 5 from Jim is because he thinks the formula didn't change much (as if it ever had with any of the other Mario Kart games).  The reason KI: U got a 5 from Jim is because he didn't like the controls, therefore it's suddenly a bad game.

In my opinion, this just shows how bad ratings are in general, but Jim Sterlings reviews are definitely outliers.

Very interesting.

I don't think you can deem it format specific bias without comparing other systems though (which I saw in the Vita cult thread you plan doing) as I know in the cases like GameSpot, they just seem to enjoy giving popular games low scores for random reasons.

If we find a site that generally gives below the meta ratings on games on one system, then above meta on another system, that would then start to suggest the reviewers favour titles on a specific system. Whether that translates to bias against a system, or software preference on a system would be difficult to prove either way still.

we will pay you minimum payment in Luxemburg per hour?

Ok and...? Jim Sterling doesnt have a Ninty bias. He likes that company. Maybe score wise you can argue that they are too low. But IMHO his is dead on about the actually words. MK7 didnt change the formula too much. THat wasnt a lie. KI U IMO had crap controls so i agree with him there. Wasnt a lie. So where is the bias?

Epic analysis! Please make for WiiU,PS3,X360 and include POLYGON on the reviewer sites.

Let me say one thing first... I didn't use the word bias anywhere in my post. 
What I'm saying is that kart racers (especially Mario Kart) follows a rather strict formula, because it's not exactly the same kind of racer as Need For Speed.  Jim Sterlings review of the game is as vague as ever when he complains about the formula and why he thinks it's so bad.  He tries to cover it up saying he doesn't think changing is always necessary, but it also seems like he doesn't even understand the game either.  In fact, I don't exactly get why they let him review it if he in general doesn't even like these games (kart racers).

As for KI: U, it is pretty obvious how melodramatic his review of the game is.  Even all of those things considered, it doesn't make sense to give the game a 5/10.  The only review that appears lower than that on Metacritic isn't even on a numerical scale and was removed even (most likely due to how poorly the review was).  

I wasn't saying Jim was lying, I am saying his scoring is quite obviously outliers in the grand scheme of things.  The controls were not as bad as he makes them out to be, and he assumes he has a higher understanding of something he clearly does not have.  Then, he goes on to count the negative points as if they are the most fundamental part of the scoring for the game.  That was my problem with Jim.  If he gave the games 7/10's, that would make more sense given the descriptions he came up for each rating.

fair enough. He feels that sometimes change is neccesary, while others it isnt. MK7 for him was the former. I dont buy the formula thing. those two sonic kart racers were different from each other. But i dont think he reviewed those so its not fair to say he hates kart racers.

The score makes sense, because he is actually using it inthe right way. 5 is average imho KI U is an average game. Now if people want to take that 5 and apply their own (wrong) value to it, thats on them. But to be fair he is an outlier as he seems to be one of the few ones using the numbers right. Anything below 7 is bad attitude has to go.

Speaking as someone who used to visit Destructoid every day, Sterling's review scores are worthless.  They often did not match the text whatsoever and sometimes they felt like pure spite.  Even with a review you might agree with, sometimes you're like "WTF" at the end when you see the numbers.  I remember when he gave Killzone 3 a 10, a game that struggled badly with online problems in the beta, then he gave another game a super low score for ... that's right, online problems in the beta.  Sterling's scores should be ignored.

Destructoid is also an example of how different writers on the same website can have much different scores.  I'm a fan of Dale North and thought he often gave very fair reviews for handheld games, scores that were not critical from the start simply because the games where on handheld consoles, while I wouldn't trust a Jim Sterling review of plain bread.  That's why I don't judge by publication, I judge by writer.