He did not claim all FPS got good scores. Read his post again. 

I just played CoD 4 and it was so....bland. It doesn't seem to matter to me any more. If they are using a Thompson or an M16...it feels all the same. I feel like I've been there before. MP3 seemed so bland to me too. Halo has always been bland. It doesn't feel the same anymore. I find FPS games to be boring.

Oh... http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/psx/review/R103253.html

"I'm not going to compare the two. I'm going to explain to you, straight up, why Chrono Cross deserves to be my most hated video game of all time. Not role playing game, not Squaresoft game, BUT VIDEO GAME."

"...the horrible music ..." - This impressed me, CC has one of the best Square OST's ever and is usually recognized that way.

"The rest of the game seriously does look wonderful, unless you look really closely at the screen and see all those pixels and crap like that. But if you look at it from a normal distance it'll look pretty good!" - As I recall, during its release, it was one of the best looking PS1 games out there, graphically. Funny.

It's as if the guy ignored everything about the game and somehow got a 'featured review' on gamefaqs. How does that kind of ignorant review even get 'featured'. lol

Gaming review scores are just ridiculous now. You used to see perfect scores going out to games once or twice a generation, only to the titles that literally redefined the industry. Now it seems as though almost every big-budget game can't get lower than an 8.5, usually hits the 9.0-9.5 range, and the best games among them routinely get 10s. Sure, a lot of these recent games are good, but come on. Call of Duty 4, getting perfect scores? That doesn't seem right at all.

The whole gaming review situation is enormously unprofessional, as I think we all know quite well. The ad revenue for the review sites is directly paid by the publishers; in effect, those who make the games pay the salaries of those who review them. Pretty obvious that there's a conflict of interest there. I don't think we'd accept the impartiality of movie reviewers who were paid by the motion picture studios, so it's disappointing that we have to do so for the gaming industry.

It seems you ignored the review. First of all, the music he referred to was just the battle music. He states near the end that he like the rest of the soundtrack. It's just that the battles being frequent make the battle music prevalent.

Second, he did say that the game looked good. Just don't look at it too close. However, the texelation* is not a fault of the game, as much as the PS1's lack of trilinear mapping (since games like FFVIII, FFIX, MGS1, and Vagrant Story have texelation as well).

As for the whole review, I say this guy put up most of the complaints of those of us who were disappointed with the game, even if we don't downright hate it.

*Some confuse that for pixelation, but pixels are a fixed dot on the screen, and a texel is a dot in 3D graphics. Basically, if it moves, it's made of texels. 

I guess too much of anything doesnt do good. I played 3 Castlevanias almost in a row. The last 2 GBA ones and then the first DS game. I stopped halfway through the DS game cause I got bored of the same thing again. 

Ignore ;)

Try Circle of the Moon. It looks the same, but the challenge is on a whole other level. 

I find the animation and movement in Circle of the Moon to be quite stiff compared to the later games. It's a good game, no doubt, but I think Aria of Sorrow is the best of the handheld Castlevanias, and was enjoyed by me nearly as much as Symphony of the Night (despite its shorter length). Awesome game.

Also, Bioshock hardly deserves to be grouped as "just another" FPS. Most FPS games only feature a variety of guns with which to fight. Bioshock brings character abilities and potential for combat customization to a whole new level for console games with its mechanics, in addition to the guns that are standard to the genre (which themselves even have multiple ammo types).