After hearing all the good things from people playing Shadowrun I expected to go to review sites and see the game get at least 8s, imagine my surprise to see scores in the 6.5 range.  What's really odd is that on gamespot the readers (1,136 who rated the game) gave it a 8.3 while the reviewer gave it a 6.9.  Also on message boards the overwhelming verdict on the game by players is that it's a lot of fun.  So if the critics are out of step with everyone that has bought the game and enjoyed it could that mean that the reviews are flawed?

It reminds me Star Wars, when the original movie came out in 1977 many reviewers gave it bad reviews even though the vast majority of the fans loved it.  I guess what I'm trying to say is when the vast majority of an audiences' opinion on something is completely different than reviewers is there a problem?

Not sure if it was meant, but i guess 'fans' is the key word in the sentence that explains why they liked it more than others.

Shadowrun in particular could be a similar case, where, of the people who own the game, people who like ir would definitely outnumber the people who don't, which could cause higher reviews by the players. That said, I haven't played it, so this is just an uneducated guess.

The question regarding reviewers, maybe check what in particular each reviewer didn't like about it and compare it to the comments made by the reader reviews, and that might give you a better idea of who to trust when considering it's purchase (if you haven't done so already)

It's not that uncommon for reviewers to be out of step with the views of gamers; currently Mario Party 8 has an average user review of 9.0 on Gamerankings.com while it only has an average review score of 70%.

The way this works is reviewers often give bad reviews to games that don't include certain features or the features are poorly implemented; many gamers may have no interest in those features so not being included (or being poorly implemented) isn't a negative at all. For example, Mario Party 8 has had several reviewers mention that it doesn't include online play ... to a certain extent this does sound like a negative but the fun in these games usually comes from local multiplayer; I couldn't imagine that these games would be any more fun in online multiplayer mode as in single player mode.

it's happened before. Gamespot rated Super Smash Bros. below a 7. I thought that was a big mistake. SSB kicks ass!!!

I think the difference is that sometimes a game that is fun and enjoyable doesn't necessarily warrant a high score. The fact is that most reviewers have said that the gameplay is fun but the game lacks content (only 9 levels and 3 game modes) and that there are things that seem lacking.

My impression is that the game is actually really good, but its just lacking a lot of content. The critics base the game on what it contains, how it plays, art style, and replayability. I think shadowrun plays great and is very replayable but lacks art style and content. Thus, gamers will like it but critics will not.

Also, you have to think that people are liking a game as the new fun game to play, on the other hand reviewers need to really be impressed by a specific game in order to play it more. If you are an owner of a system and a new big game of a specific genre comes out you embrace it because you're trying it out.

In the long run, Shadowrun will be remembered as a huge missed opportunity to bring another rpg that MS needs and getting a subpar online shooter....

I wonder how this will do sales-wise, I'm very curious.