I really just think that many games are under-rated, because nowadays it takes a lot of hype to reach 90 percent.

No Phoenix Wright game will ever be AAA.

The best game on the console, EBA, has an average review. Elite Beat Agents deserves 90 plus, I don't know who the hell would deny that underration.

These games are just very niche, and thus will never reach the mainstream hyped 90+.

When games aren't hyped, reviewers have to think for themselves. When reviewers think for themselves, they never, ever come to the same conclusion. Handheld games aren't hyped. Therefore, less AAA titles.

Really the review score hasnt been given on how fun the game is... look at San andreas, its much better than GTA4, even though SA was on PS2 with lower graphics and all. I mean games are bein given scores depending on how perfect it is in each category, and not the overall quality and general fun it produces

 It's reasonable to expect the quality of a game to be reflected in its review.  If this is not being done, then reviews serve no purpose.

rating system is bullshit.

ratings are being bought these days, i never trust them anymore. So who cares what few number of games are 9+ or 90+. Hey its better than buggy games getting 10's

who cares follow ign :)

Such a shame that so many good games aren't respected with good scores.

IGN isn't perfect ctk495. Simply, the review system is broken and being handled by sometimes unprofessional and bias or hating people. Anyways everything is subjective and you could disagree or agree with anyone. But when reviewers differ too much in their scores theres bias, hate or stupidity coming from them.

There's always a general concensus about a game and the "score" most of the people give to it. When reviewers are too far from this spot there's bias. Just like Gamespot, which is biased against PS3 and more severly against the Wii.

Because the reviewers let you down. When a game like Final Fantasy IV, one of the top 5 RPGS of all time, doesn't even average 90%, it's time to not worry to much about the percentages.

The answer to this, and pretty much any other complaint about review sites, can be answered with this sentence: "'Gaming journalism' is basically a bunch of manchildren writing articles for other manchildren, so by no means should one take it seriously."

Its review, yes. Its aggregate review compiled by an unrelated site, no.

Non-hyped games don't give reviewers a predisposition to a score. Reviewers will never agree, ever. Therefore, without the hype, games will rarely, if ever, score above 90 percent.

So you are absolutely right. A metacritic average score number means nothing. Particularly when they give games 67 percent for a B- and refuse to fix the mistake.

That's why its childish and ignorant. Anyone would arrive at the same conclusion after 15 minutes of deliberation. I simply believe that most people don't give it that much time, before they post.