Bias IMO is towards favouring Xbox and shooters.
Most if not all 360 games are the exact same game experience but
with updated graphics. Most innovative experience I've had with the
360 is Geometry Wars Retro Evolved... ah! and of course paid online.

Wii supporters can complain that Zelda TP got an 8.8, yes, it did, but the
average review was well above 9. I like nintendo games, last gen I owned
a Dreamcast first and later a GC. But I play Wii sports only as a party game.
Wii play is a joke that I only bought because I needed another Wiimote and
the bundle with it was only 10 EUR extra. The catalog so far is very limited.

Now let's see what happens with PS3 reviews,
Motorstorm has impressive graphics and unique next gen physics. It was
trashed because the single player is "short". Gears of war is shorter, anyone noticed that to affect final review score? I didn't
Oblivion PS3 is known to have more content, better polished graphics
and much faster loading times. Still many times it gets worse scores
than the 360 version. Used argument? It is almost one year later and
the game should be 3 times better... GTA was launched more than one year
later in the first xbox and got ultra high scores.

Western reviewers love shooters, specially Americans do so, this is, in my experience, an illness that comes from no having played good Japanese games as a kid and knowing videogames first on a sad beige box, or having some sexual reaffirmation issues that make them treat kiddy looking games in an homophobic way.
Maybe a few will feel offended by my comment, but I get more offended by the
flood of terrible unoriginal games getting the highest marks and taking over good old gaming. Even PS3 is getting was too many shooters.

Nintendo might very well save good gaming again.

I guess it must be a different situation in the US then...

 Some good points...load times twice as fast, but criticized because you can't also purchase the expansion.  Kinda ridiculous.  Criticized because you can't spend more money later...*sigh*  Still great ratings, though.  Resistance not scoring higher than Gears was pretty much graphics.  But, thems the breaks.

That said, most reviews rate the fun factor, guys.  It's called the overall score.  They don't all have to be gamepro and list "fun factor" as it's own criteria. 

Fun factor is very subjective my friend. I have played Quest 64 when I was a teenages and - God please forgive me - had a lot of fun with it. That game doesnt deserve a score greater than 6 but back them I had a "fun time" with it.
I agree that some games like Superman 64 are timeless crap, it was not fun back them and is not today. But considering that Tony Hawk 3 is one the 4 games that got a perfect 10 from Gamespot make me question it even if it was "greatest experience ever" for the reviewers at the time.

I have to ask, where are you buying/looking at tvs?  Even Wal-Mart has 16:9 tvs.

How about stopping with the insults?  Some of us like Western games and for you to claim we suffer some kind of illness or sexual reaffirmation issues because of it is insulting.  For us it can be the thrill of the competition as we play some of the best players from around the World, especially when it's team play.

As for Japanese games being somehow "better" than Western ones and first person shooters being somehow "uncreative", well I look at most Japanese rpgs being churned out and they have the same problem, just like first person shooters very few of them actually bring something new to the table.

Anyways if you feel reviewers are biased well then that's your belief, for me I see games from Nintendo or Square Enix and other Japanese developers get 9s and 10s so if Western reviewers are biased how did these games get such high reviews?  Want to know something funny?  Take a guess at how well Western games get reviewed in Japan, and I mean some of the best Western games.  I'll give you a hint, not one Western game has ever received a perfect score from Famitsu or even a 39.  Are you going to defend them and tell me that no Western game ever made is better than Ridge Racer Revolution for instance?  It got a higher score than *any* game they've ever reviewed from the West.  Dead of Alive 4 did as well.  I think our reviewers are more fair than theirs.

Best Buy. I still see 3:4 at Wal Mart. How many 16:9 they have. I can't remember. I'd have to check(next time I go). But, yeah, I still don't see them very often. I've only seen one in a house. EVER. 

Yeah, but usually they get good scores from Nintendo and Square, but no one else. The FPS on the otherhand recive high score regardless of who made it. But basides that your right, both RPGs and Shooters are pretty bland.

And yes, Japanese critics make Gamespot seficicated and interlectual. You could say it's a difference in taste, but I see it as you can't tell what's good or bad if it hit you over the back of the head. I beleive the Gundam game for the PS3 got a good score. I saw that game. That game is ugly. http://www.g4tv.com/xplay/reviews/1313/Mobile_Suit_Gundam_Crossfire.html Go see what I mean. The water moves like a fabric. At least in the states we try and look at what's good. Not whats an over complicated genaric RPG

Sorry I had to rant. But, they really don't have critics in Japan. That Magazine is it.

Smashchu - the Gundam game that got good reviews was a different game, Gundam Musou. Even the Japanese agreed that Crossfire sucked. :P

 Legend11,

I should have added most instead of making it totally general.  People talk a lot about hardcore gamers, and associate it with shooters and I disagree. There is nothing less hardcore than ditching a game because it has "kiddy graphics" favouring war themed ones. At the end shooters replicate one children's group game. Male's only, and very boring, let me add.  Maybe you didn't notice, but most negative arguments about Nintendo styled games do show some reaffirmation issues. Does liking cute make you gay? Is there anything negative about non violent games?  Or I should say non gore games, because Super Smash Brothers is indeed violent, just not bloody.  Sorry I get annoyed at Mortal Kombat success.  I can take gore but I freak out seeing a game be a hit based on gore when it has very poor playability. RE4 is a great game, MK and many, many shooters are not.  Graphics many times are very detailed but lack true artistic quality. People say "what graphics!!!" about a game where characters lack any real world anatomy and the style of sets and characters don't match.  But... (drumroll)...  Heads explode and blood spreads like never before!!!  how cool!!!, you hear them say. 

Should I apologize for feeling sorry when I see people enjoying a game based only on the brutality shown?

Also, as a matter of fact, I have never seen somebody who as a child played either MSX or NES games that can't appreciate the typical game polish many japanese games have and many western ones don't have. It is very typical for those whose first games were played in an Spectrum, Amstrad, Atari ST or a PC.  Platforms that generally got western games.  You want hardcore gamers?you will find many more with a DS in the pocket than with a Live Gold account. For the non-gamer Gears of War or COD3 are much more attractive than New SMB. 

About Famitsu, lately they are giving very high scores to 360 games. Gears of war got a 37 and so did DOA4. Forza 2 got a 36, PGR3 a 33. If anything, Famitsu is pushing 360 games to Japanese gamers. Just to check, I just entered famitsu web site to see who is paying the salaries.  First add to appear, Dead Raising for 360... enough said.