Like I said I don't think its just because critics dislike MS, they just don't like the type of games MS makes. Halo 5 and Gears 4 had middling campaigns, but overall (campaign, PvP, co-op) they're great products.

Gears 5 is also the first game we've seen really showing an emphasis on graphics and polish outside of Forza. It also raised the bar in gameplay mechanics, yet it didn't score much better. Go figure!

Either way, consumers will play MS games as long as they're enjoyable. Scores in the 90s isn't required for a game to thrive. Sea of Theives for example is popular even after being panned.

I expected a bit higher score considering how it was meant to be a big Gears return to its top form. But yeah, media bias against Microsoft is a thing this gen.

Understood.

Well perhaps next gen you'll play it on their stream.

Its a sad truth unfortantly. Gears 5 now sits at 85 and can drop to an 84 which is the same score as Gears 4 and majority who have played 4 and 5 can tell you these games are leagues apart.

Metacritic is losing its reputation and is starting to become unnecessary to me.

Which is absolutely baffling... Because Gears 5 is superior to Gears 4 in every single way on PC and Xbox, reviewers need to take note of what older games scored and score successive titles in relation to that.

Was always unnecessary to me! There are games that ranked highly on metacritic that I absolutely dislike... And other games which ranked poorly which I  absolutely adore.
Personal taste is a very big and real thing.

Metacritic is okay to use if you don't base your judgment on the score itself, but the general reception if that makes sense. Some of these journalists shouldn't be reviewing games because they have no idea what they are talking about and you can tell they wanted to be movie reviewers.

Media bias against MS = substantiated critique by everyone except the fanatics

The detail is that usually reviewers will give a lower score if the sequel is at the same level or not much better.

Also the more and better games released besides the game under evaluation also pressure the score down.

Funny observation from Azz because on the Sony metacritic he was defending the lower scores as being valid plus on SoT and some other MS games that 70+ were great scores plus scores already not being important to determine if the game is good or bad on a generic term.

The fact a game is better than its sequel doesn't mean it'll score higher. Times change, and concepts and gameplay formulas that were once considered great might become stale. For instance, Pokémon, to which GF is always adding new stuff and reworking old concepts just to keep more or less the same reception they got in the 90s, even though the games are now considerably more immersive and rewarding.

Look at gameplay of any game of the Gears of War series and you'll be hard pressed to tell which is which unless you're really into it. Now compare to something like Mario or even another TPS like Mass Effect. Boom, instantly different gameplay, different interface, art direction etc. etc. Gears of War, though? Since 2006 I'm still going to press a button at the right time to reload my gun faster...

I am with Pemalite with this one when it comes to metacritic. I don't need a game to be rated super high for me to enjoy it and some of my favourite games over the many years are no where near 90 scores nor do they have to be. 

Its just sad that Metacritic (Something I use to use in the past) has fallen from grace with me and Gears 5 is exactly that example. Media bias is a thing and unfortunately a game that has had so much time put into it and money spent invested has created a vastly superior product to its previous game yet almost sits on the same score. Trust me I played them both, I doubt you have, and many others will agree with me here, Gears 4 and 5 are in different leagues of each other.

To put it simple, Gears 5 is not at the same level of Gears 4 or close to. If you played them you will see for yourself.