Well a 9 for Halo 3 does sound about right.

Anyways, I'm not sure what part of MGS4 they were reviewing so it's hard to tell what they thought. When it comes to SP/MP, both the games are pretty much the opposite. Halo3 is known for it's online play, while MGS4 is known for it's campaign. If the game was reviewed for a few days, MGS4 might look like a more attractive choice. If it was reviewed for a full month, it's likely that they'll be playing much more Halo3.

In short, reviewers really need to split campaign/online reviews.

I should probably stop being lazy and give MGO another chance. It took me about 2 hours to get it up and running the first time - first, the MGO update was taking it's sweet ass time (over an hour to finish), then there was the hassle of creating an account. Finally I entered a game, and had lag so bad that I was lucky to get one kill. I decided to practice CQC on teammates and some of them raged so hard......even when I only held them for about 5 secs....

Man...these hardcore console fanboys are getting old. Ever week there is a new one...

The worrying thing here is that they did split up the campaign and online reviews, since they are technically different games.

MGS4: 8/10. THIS is what I disagree with.

MGO: 7/10

And then the idiot who reviewed MGO had the audacity to say that you should average the scores and get 7.5/10 for the whole package... sigh.

I've just about managed to forgive them for that, and that would change if I did more than glance and laugh at their graphics comparisons which always mysteriously manage to favour the 360, with their talk of 5 fps drops being game breaking, and jaggies being hideous, and pop-in, and such.

then halo 3 history is garbage, and not more than 10 hours long while msg4 go easier over 20.

at most both games should got a 9 but never a 10.

They gave Failo 3 a 10 and MGS4 an 8?!?!?!?!?!?! LMAOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! I knew they were trash but I didn't realise how much they stank.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned gamespot's console comparisons. They do one on a quarterly basis I believe. I think they tend to give the 360 the win as well, but I haven't looked at all their comparison's so I can't be sure.

Gamespot and Eurogamer bias or PS3 hasn't more powerful?

It has is and will be now and forever.

Eurogamer's opinion is  based on facts.

They use high end professional video capture equipment to make their analysis. In fact, they have partnered with Digital Foundry that makes the high end equipment.

http://www.digitalfoundry.org/

• Made by games professionals, for games professionals, Digital Foundry HD hardware offers the highest quality HD capture solutions on the market
• Designed to interface directly with games hardware, not cameras or tape decks, DFHD products are the only systems available that support the full 24-bit RGB output of gaming hardware
• Combined with HDMI or DVI sources, Digital Foundry offers a completely lossless digital transfer along with superior capture options for realtime HD video editing on multiple LNEs
• Our TrueHD hardware allows for full 1080p HD capture from PC, Xbox 360 or PS3 at up to 60 frames per second - the only truly future-proof solution
• Digital Foundry has also pioneered portable HD capture, with a range of powerful solutions aimed at games media professionals
• Backed by a fully featured suite of tools, Digital Foundry offers astonishing quality whether you're after pristine quality video or precision screenshots

Yes, Gamespot and Eurogamer (UK version only, the other Eurogamer sites I heard are more balanced) I identified as the most biased inconsistent review websites in the past (of the bigger sites at least).

Somehow they seem to display warm feelings for failure prone noisy systems.