I couldn't help but notice how Eurogamer have caught some flack for their scores, supposed bias, or whatever fanboy nonsense people come up with. But I would like to turn people's attention to this Editor's Blog on Eurogamer: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/editors-blog-eg-scoring-policy-blog-entry

Here is the scoring policy for Eurogamer:

• 10/10 - Phenomenal
• 9/10 - Excellent
• 8/10 - Very good
• 7/10 - Good
• 6/10 - Above average
• 5/10 - Average
• 4/10 - Below average
• 3/10 - Bad
• 2/10 - Atrocious
• 1/10 - Bloody atrocious

The most recent examples I can think of, are with inFAMOUS and FUEL. inFAMOUS got a 7, which means the reviewer still liked it, and FUEL got a 5, which means the game is average. I would argue that IGN tend to score way too high, where 'average' is closer to a 7, instead of 5, where 5 should be 'average' because it's the number in the middle.

Yeah i don't think most people know that.  They just see a 7 or lower on one of their favorite games and automatically think thats a horrible biased score, and from their on hate the reviewer (that is until said reviewer rates another one of their favorite games very high)

The problem isn't their score system as much as it is the fact that they're inconsistent. It's like some of their reviewers uses this system and others use the "Ign" system. Hence the overall prospect provides a .. look at the scores that people figure are based like the rest of the reviewing community (with using the upper 5 points of the scala instead of the total 10)

for every single review site/mag out, there are people that hate / love them.

Someone made a complaint about how infamous got the Only 60/100 score from some noname site,

But yet said nothing about the Only 100/100 score a noname site gave it..

People love to complain about review sites/mags...

to each his own... I mean if you see a site that gives the same impressions you feel about games, then stick with that site's/mag's reviews.

Well I don't think it's unreasonable for people, especially Americans, to see 7 as a bad score because if you look at it like a grading system it's 10-9=A 8's=B and 7's=C.

It's more that most other reviewers all use 75% as "average"

For instance Infamous got a 7/10 (or may have been 6/10) from the Teletext service, which means it is slightly above average (his main dislike was that it wasn't really a superhero game, more that guns had just been replaced with electricity)

How is GiantBomb, founded by the legendary Jeff "8.8" Gerstmann, a no name site?  :P

It's a noname site, don't care who founded it.

You never heard anyone mention it (by other sites/Members), I never read a review up until today from them, so it's a noname site in my book.

The only good thing about Eurogamer, in my opinion, is their review scale (or scoring policy, or whatever you call it). I suppose someone likes the site... But to me, they seem to be very biased against more hardcore games - and the games don't even have to be very hardcore, it's almost enough if they're deeper than Halo or CoD.

The problem is in what games receive "Phenomenal" award there in recent years.

And they seem to be biased toward easy games and love everything with FPS mechanic.