I get it, I see your point.  But that's the point of using an aggreate review site, rather than one reivew.  As even if they are in the bunch, there are people in the bunch that can appreciate Video games as a whole.

But if no one in the bunch does appreciate videogames as a whole, you are correct.  But that's a pretty serious generalization to say that not many, if any at all don't appreciate videogames as a whole.

animal crossing is bigger but god of war is better. animal crossing is so boring. the only good thing that happens is the monthly event. waste of money.

Of course, this is only true if that aggregate is selected randomly and distributed equally, which they are not. A much large distribution of game reviewers are white, male and young (20-35) than would be seen in the general population. I would argue their games tastes are more homogenous as a result, and as such, an aggregate isn't worth a great deal more than a single case. That is, if the review criterion are as stated (which apparently we all agree, they are).

 As a side note (not directed at DMeisterJ), I notice many people's stance on the value of reviews oscillates: when a game arrives that [Person X] loves, and that game gets a 7.5, the person goes into great detail to explain why the reviewer is wrong and corrupt and the whole review process needs to be scrapped. But then, as soon as a conversation like this pops up and metacritic is once again on their side, they immediately bring up that Game X has a 2.4 better metacritic average than Game Y. Pick a side, please: either reviews are relevant (which can be argued), or they are not (and the same applies here). You cannot discredit reviews and then recredit them whenever it suits you. I've seen this method applied across all strata, be you Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft fanboy.

 im glad im not the only one who noticed this

Reviews are always relevant to me. If a game I like get's a low score it's because it sucked, not because anythings wrong with the review scale. I have a strict policy of only buying games that IGN gives an 8.0 or above to. That's the only reason I gave MHF2 a go, after hating the original, and I found a game I loved.

Going by only buying 8.0 or above games from IGN has never proved me wrong, and I love the review scale they have.

I've never understood why people think gow is so massive a franchise. It sells well but is a lot smaller then many many series of games sales wise.

umm....what's animal crossing?

I'm serious.......

I say AC is more popular in Japan and GoW in America but Euro no clue.

Again, I wasn't trying to single you out, but you asked for it.

Eurogamer gives MGO a 7/10:

[DMeister quotes and agrees with]: I think Orange Box is a bad comparison though. Orange Box was a collection of Valve games, some even old. Since no one reviewed the online for Halo 3, Resistance, or Gears of War separately, why should MGS4 get different treatment?

I give this thread a 9.7.

Second Post:

DMeisterJ: Wow.

That review was so horrible.

They spent the whole review finding every negative they could in the gameplay and sensationalizing it to the nth degree.

If you read their review, and had no idea what MGO was, you'd think that the mode was absolutely horrible.

Even most negative reviews have some positive in there, but I failed to see any positivity in that review.

X-Play expresses concern about the length of MGS4 cutscenes:

DMeisterJ: Did we not expect long cutscenes?

Kojima said that MGS4 would be like MGS2, so I expected long cutscenes.

Also, mandatory installs are beginning to be old news, they're only a big deal to people who don't own PS3s as a means to try to downplay the system. Most system owners don't care about taking ten minutes to install something and move on.

I don't think either two are big deals, but I'm sure some reviewers would have lowered the score for the game based off of those two things, since people always want attention nowadays.

MGS4 gets a 9.2:

Too much shooting?

Uhh... This is a Stealth-action game... Shooting is somewhat necessary, but most people are able to be taken out by CQC.

You question reviews all the time, DMeister. At least when it doesn't suit your personal opinion.

you should have made the topic have "better" instead of "bigger"

It is good liking a game and thinking its better, kind of like sports, My friend loves the lakers but they lost yet he still claims they are the better team. However celtics won cause they won more games.

Maybe many people claim GoW is the better franchise but AC sold way more games.