What's with all the bad reviews?

**This blog was inspired by many reviews of games that've come out recently, though reading the reviews of Killzone 3 got me started.

Call of Duty Black Ops is not really a good game. The campaign is decent and the multiplayer is more boring than MW2's, which is hacker-filled and annoying. Still, the game's better than MW2 even if multiplayer isn't as fun. However, what scores do you see for it? The most butchered version of the game on PS3 has an 88 average on Metacritic with the 360 right behind with an 87. Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, though, probably a tie for the worst CoD game in the series with Call of Duty 3, has a 84 on both Ps3 and 360. Oh, but I'm not done! Call of Duty 4, arguably the best game in the series, has the same score on 360.

WHAT THE FU-

So let's get this straight for a moment: Call of Duty 4 is one of the most loved games of all time and it has a 94. It's sequel, which failed miserably, gets the same score. Black Ops, which is only slightly better than MW2, gets a worse score.

Well, that doesn't make any sense. However, the reviewers seemingly disregarded the campaign of MW2 and Black Ops as a whole, reviewing the boring multi in Black Ops and hacked MP in MW2 and giving the game great scores for mediocre games.

Today, there's been a ton of Killzone 3 reviews out, most of which are between 8.5 and 9.5. After reading a good bit of them, I realized two things. 1) They compare Killzone 3 to Call of Duty A LOT. WHY?? THEY'RE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GAMES! That's like comparing Halo to Counter-Strike. You just don't do that! 2) They're placing a TON of criticism on the single-player, with a lot of the reviews having the single-player portion of the review slightly bigger than the multiplayer. What the hell? The same people didn't do that for Call of Duty, but what's the excuse? "Well, you buy Call of Duty for the multiplayer".

I don't! After MW2, I bought Black Ops for a better single-player, since Treyarch is seemingly better at that than multi. It just makes no sense. They're comparing two totally different games and giving the better a less fair review.

I'm just using those 2 games as an example, but there's been TONS upon TONS of just as biased reviews for the past years. Shellshock 2 was actually a good game, though not without it's flaws. But just like AvP, it was bashed down to hell for not being the next Call of Duty or Halo or this or that.

As a reviewer myself, it just annoys me so much to see how much bias these so-called "professionals" suck at doing their job. After reading all of the people's comments on many reviews, I can truly understand why people don't like many mainstream reviews.