Do anyone notice how game reviews can be a load of nonsense? Popular games get inflated review scores such as the Halo's, Mario's, Zelda's Bioshock, Half-Life's, etc. Seriously why do review sites give out such high scores when they are not justified? Time and time again the high review scores do not always result in high game sales.

The PS3 games have been harshly reviewed in comparison to the Wii and 360 games. Multiplatform games on PS3/360 have received different scores when they were identical in every way. Reviewers have been biased towards both the Wii and 360. Reviewers have been very critical of the PS3.

That's why i support a 5 star rating as opposed to the %.

 That doesnt resolves much . Average ratings point out the average gamers taste . 90 % of gamers whom play a game usually agrees with the averege score it gets ( true , there are some exceptions ) .

You seriously think reviewers are biased *towards* the Wii?

Take all reviews with a grain of salt. The content of the reviews (considered in relation to your personal preferences) is far more valuable than any number assigned to them.

I disagree that there's some sort of widespread bias going on here. If people are foolish enough to not buy a game merely because it averaged 86-88 instead of low 90s are clueless anyway.

I think you should just find a review site that has the most simular taste to you, & only listen to their review.

@DKII

I also wondered if that was what he really meant. And how can you judge how good a game should be judged? I don't believe Game Critics, but users also praise SMG, Bioshock, the orange box and so on (not that user reviews should determine anything except for brags)

Also, what multiplats are virtually the same and have big differences in scores?

Cod 4: 0.5% higher on X360. Why? Hard to say, but according to your way, it is even more biased toward PC (0.9% below Ps3)

Oblivion: 0.7% higher on X360. Even more biased against PC again.

Orange Box: higher on 360, but also the better version. Same for PES and Fifa.

RockBand: 2% higher on 360, but Ps3 version has a bit of lag?

Sometimes the scores could actually be warranted and other times it could be a cultural thing. Who would want to be the site who "bashes" (giving scores below 8.5 is apparently bashing in some peoples eyes) a very popular franchise?
People would, stupid as it sounds, loose trust in them for rating their favourite games lower than they expected/wanted and the sites/magazines could pay dearly for it, loosing users/readers and get into a lot of trouble for a very long time.

Just my 0.02 dollars, no fuzz.

I think that reviewers are a good indication of how the game will be. I'm not going to completely believe them, but it's something that will make me more or less interested in a game.

Most times the 360 games get better reviews on gamerankings is because they have more 360 sites/mags reviewing the games.