Those sites that gave out those 4 perfect scores need to shut down lol

Am I missing some hidden context somewhere? What, exactly, am I looking at?

i'd say its contextual

if i'm asking someone's opinion on lets say what medication i should take for a particular ailment then obviously i'd look for someone with medical training

but this is not a situation where special training in something is required

all reviewers do is give you their opinion on whether the general public will find a game fun or not

...anyone can do that since there's no need for the opinion to be backed by specialised training

Yes, and "10/10 - Some random guy from GamesRadar" would also be perceived as silly. And yet, that's exactly all it is: some random guy from GamesRadar's opinion. If it was "10/10 - GamesRadar", it would be the same thing but people like you seem to hold a higher opinion simply because it's attached to a brand. What you're arguing here is semantics of perception, not the quality of review.

Now please, tell me how you assign objective value to people's opinions.

I don't even know why this is relevant... people are still buying it everywhere... the 75/100 is not stopping their sales in anyway...

I'd say it's relevant only as a sign of how far they have to look for the positive reviews.

I don't rate these opinons less than of an IGN or Gamspot reviewer; however, if they had to scoure the more obscoure sites on the web to find the positive reviews it highlights the many less flattering reviews which they decided not to advertise.

On seeing that ad, I wouldn't have to go to IGN or gamespot to know it didn't score highly.

If you are using reviews as a way of saying "my product is worth buying" and you have to resort to a bunch of sites no one has ever heard of in order to make that case, you shouldn't be using reviews as evidence that said product is worth buying. If this was a random sampling of reviews, then sure, I could let something like this slide, but it isn't. This is just a misrepresentation of critical opinion, and that is why using mostly no name sites is laughable...

Do you not see my point?

fair enough thats a good point

They show 4 100's but not the 100 that is actually counted on Metacritic, being the Aussie Playstation mag.

this.

i think everyone (except those idiots) can agree that its not perfect.