No, I'm saying that whenever reviewers give titles a lower/higher score, people go on about how much fun or the lack of fun that had with it. No More Heroes, Wii Sports, and Lost Odyssey are good examples of this. They all received ok-good scores but some consider them to be the best games of this generation.

UH money. Tell me where a video game website gets their money from. Video game companies adverstising, and that's it.

They will review the money makers good, and games that they don't have big income from they review badly (if they can get away with it, and due to fanboyism the Wii-hate has made an easy scapegoat to review pathetically) in order to get hits to their site. Thus do to the high reviews and the controversal reviews, they get a bunch of hits on their site so companies put their video games advertising on there.

its horrible.

but Nintendo makes the most money and Developers, Sony loses money. Who's given them this money?

Look at the highest rated exclusive game this Generation.

One reason it's broken, any high profile game with obvious flaws are given strong scores based on hype. Reversely, any low profile game with few noteworthy flaws are panned harder. Also, audience differences. Any hardcore gamer reviewing a piece of casual software is going to give it something fairly low right off the bat. The opposite is true too. In short, we need casual game players reviewing casual software and hardcore game players reviewing core/hardcore software.

Also, numbers matter far too much. Also the stratification of scores is ridiculous. It seems to me that the view of scores can be generalized into:

10 = Either the developer/publisher paid for the review or the site is biased and worth noting
9-9.9 = Generally worth looking at. The "must buys" if you will
8-8.9 = Get it after a price cut, rent if possible
7-7.9 = Buy if you like the genre or at a bargain price, rent otherwise
6-6.9 = Avoid, don't take seriously
0-5.9 = Don't play this game

I think there's also pressure to get hits on their site but to avoid internet backlash

In general I think that there are a lot of good developers out there making a ton of really good games... there are way too many good games on the market. Every couple of weeks there's a game worth buying. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The real problem is when people start complaining about review scores because it doesn't match their impressions of the game regardless of whether they actually played the game or not.

Doesn't matter what the companies or developers are making.  What company do you see the least amount of advertisign from, especially on gaming sites?  Nintendo.

Now if you go to IGN or something and during a big release you see HALO 3, or COD4 MW2, or whatever else big game is coming out and the SHIT TON of advertising all over the place.  The side banners, top banners, wallpaper, everything is all brinign in a ton of cash for that site from that company.  Now if you are a reviewer, you may be honest and review it right, but when it comes to the actual score of the game your editor, or the game site head or whatever will look at that carefully.  If they are getting a ton of money from a game, they aren't gona let you post some 8 or 7 or something.  They will bump it up as high as they can while still looking trustworthy.

Haven't you ever read a review that doesn't make sense at all compared to the score.

Now how to video game sites get advertising from companies, by showing that a big number of peopel go to their site, by getting hits so to speak.  So how do they do this, they take a big hyped or internet gamers favorite game and if they don't get money from this company they write and review the game poorly in order to get hits of people bitching about the score.  Which as Nintendo being a company that doesn't advertise much online, and also coincidentally a hugely anti-wii bashing in their favor, they pick on these games.  They get big hits from peopel who like the game going WTF, and also hits from just fanboys who just hate the wii.

So i'm not suprised that most games are like all 8.5 minimum and any game with any hype at all seems to get a 9+

Hell go to IGN right now, its like your getting rapped by assassins creed 2, by the sheer amount of advertising on the site.  Now no way in hell is that game gonna get anything lower than a 9.

Now I know GTA4 will be used for reviewers scoring a game too high, but that game still deserve a 9 or higher. Now, what are those other some of you feel got rated too high?

I used to dislike the 5 star system that X-play used but I now believe it's the best. None of the petty crap that game x got .1 more pts than game y. A must play game gets 5 stars and a piss poor one gets 1 star. Let the GotY awards determine what the best game for each system and genre are.

The main problem is there is not basic standard for reviewers to base their scores. A 10 of 10 for one reviewer might be a must play game while for another it's perfection

A 5 might be average for one reviewer while it's a 7 from another.

Then you have sites like metacritic and game rankings that try to average out all these scores when there is no base score that all the reviewers use as average.

When it comes down to it the content of the review is really more important than the score. The problem is to many people are lazy to read a review and want it summed up into a quantity.

Only a handful of games in history should ever receive a 9.5 or over and only perhaps a handful of games every decade should receive a 9 or over. The fact that there are several games that receive these scores each year is the problem.

There are only 3 movies in history that have received over 90 on imdb 250. The highest rated movie EVER is rated 9.1. Game scores should be far harsher and they should take into account the social/philosophical relevance and meaning of the game just as movie reviews do. A movie without thematic substance never rates in the 80's.

I think GTA should have been around an 8. Honestly probably lower then that i hate the game but thats just me.

I think the average game should get like what a 7. A good game should get like a what 7.5 8.

A game that does a lot of things right but a few things let it down should be like an 8.5

A game that gets above a 9 should be really really good. I mean not a thing wrong with it. A game where you think and am like that was fucking sick. fun whatever.

9.5 Higher. Needs to be perfect. And i mean the dogs bollox. You know one of those games that only come around once every few years or so. A game where you play it and play and play and just dont want it to end.

It has to be that good you cant even think of a bad thing about it or a way in which it could be improved upon with-in reason.

A game can only get a 10 is if its made by sony or is exclusive to sony platforms.