[[TheLegendOfZeldaTwilightPrincess http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/eight_point_eight.jpg]]
[[caption-width:434:[[center:OhCrap.]]]]

->''"A 3DFX card can play ''{{Quake}}'' in 640x480 resolution at 60 frames per second, that's a '''fact'''. ''{{Quake}}'' has 89 points' worth of game in it, that's a '''subjective opinion'''."''
->-Niko Nirvi, Finnish games journalist and critic.

The stir created in the video game community when a high-profile game receives an unexpectedly high or low score from a major reviewer, especially when it significantly differs from the general consensus. Especially jarring because professional video game reviewers tend to give out very similar scores.

Whether or not this stir is justified is up for debate. On the one hand, a reviewer shouldn't just automatically go along with the crowd, even for nigh-universally-loved games. On the other, sometimes you get the feeling that they're doing it intentionally to create controversy and attract attention. After all, professional game reviewers [[FourPointScale aren't exactly entirely trustworthy]].

Sometimes you get the feeling that Eight Point Eight situations are simply the fans are making a [[SeriousBusiness mountain]] out of a [[FanDumb molehill]]. It's worth noting that reviews tend to be published a day or two before the game is actually released, meaning that many people are decrying the score awarded to a game ''they haven't yet played themselves''. Such is the behavior of a console or series [[{{Otaku}} fanboy]]: ComplainingAboutPeopleNotLikingTheShow. Naturally caused by the fact that many gamers believe that ReviewsAreTheGospel.

Often, the score may be controversial because it adversely affects the game's overall average score on review compendium sites such as [[http://www.gamerankings.com Game Rankings]] and [[http://www.metacritic.com Meta Critic]]. Alternatively, animosity can be generated from detractors of the game who all start to act as if the low score is the only 'correct' one, so no matter how many good reviews it got, if [=GameSpot=] says it's not that great, it's officially a rubbish game.

'''Note:''' This is ''not'' [[{{Ptitleq40okv0trw6h}} Complaining About Reviews You Don't Like]]. There has to have been a definite ruckus generated by the review for it to be counted as a Eight Point Eight situation.
----
!!Examples:

[[foldercontrol]]

[[folder: Gamespot]]
* The TropeNamer comes from the unimaginable havoc created by [[http://www.gamespot.com Gamespot]]'s review of ''TheLegendOfZelda: Twilight Princess'' in November 2006, which awarded the game a great-but-not-amazing score of 8.8 out of 10. The Internet erupted in anger and chaos as the game was one of the most anticipated games of all-time, and near-perfect scores were expected.
** ItGotWorse when the [=GameCube=] version of the game receieved an 8.9, from the same reviewer. This was in spite of the fact that the review's text recommended buying the Wii version instead if the option was available. Repeat, he gave the game he thought was ''superior'' a ''lower score''. Even for a tenth of a point, it was still a tenth in the wrong direction of his recommendation. The reviewer in question was blackballed for this logical inconsistency, and reportedly received death threats. The number "8.8" has since become an Internet fad in some gaming circles. In fact, as proof of its infamy, as of this writing typing ' 8.8 ' into Google and clicking "I'm feeling lucky" will yield the review.
** Interestingly, when he later got fired, accusations started flying that he was fired for breaking the opposite rule: the FourPointScale. See that entry for more details.
** Completely inverted and played with and generally mocked by Dutch videogame magazine, Power Unlimited, a couple of reviewers gave Zelda: Twilight Princess a whopping '''9.8''', everything fine and dandy, you reckon? [[ItGotWorse Nuh uh]]. Another reviewer, who wasn't in particular a big Nintendo fan as opposed to the two that did the game, was so pissed off that in his review of ''DeadOrAlive [[DistractedByTheSexy Extreme]] [[{{Gainaxing}} 2]]'' [[GagBoobs he]] [[AbsoluteCleavage gave]] [[UnderBoobs it]] [[MostCommonSuperPower a]] [[BoobsOfSteel 9.9]] [[BeachEpisode out]] of [[MaleGaze spite]].
*** [[OrIsIt Or did he!?]]
*** One can also argue that the magazine can be taken seriously anyway, seeing the BrokenBase and / or UnpleasableFanbase, and the general fact that even the editors themselves claim that they don't often follow the main stream reviewers. [[spoiler:That, and from the review itself it becomes clear that the game did deserve a 99, if you substract it from 100.]]
** Helps that a lot of the mag works on a RuleOfFunny anyway.
*Gamespot's 8.7 review of ''MetalGear Solid 3''.
*Gamespot's 8.3 review of ''TheLegendOfZelda: Majora's Mask''. Especially odd since they gave ''Ocarina of Time'' a perfect 10.
** Well, ''Ocarina of Time'' ''does'' tend to score higher than ''Majora's Mask'', but usually not by THAT much (IGN, for example, gave ''Ocarina'' a 10.0 and ''Majora'' a 9.9...off by just one point.)
** Interestingly, the Gamespot reviews for ''Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Wind Waker'', and ''Twilight Princess'' were all by Jeff Gerstmann.
* Gamespot's 8.5 review of ''{{Metroid}} Prime 3''. Various "problems" cited included controls that were too ''good'', lack of multiplayer (notable for a 20 year old franchise that has almost never had a multiplayer component. Then again, this game came after the multiplayer-focused ''Metroid Prime Hunters''...), and not being ''{{Halo}}''.
** It didn't help that Gamespot had recently altered their review system, making all score multiples of .5 .
* Gamespot and IGN's scores of ''Lair'', which were 4.5 and 4.9 respectively. PS3 fans continue to insist that all reviewers that had problems with the controls are wrong and that the reviewers were probably 'paid off' by Microsoft or Nintendo.
** Sony didn't help by insisting the former as well, to the point of even sending "clarified" manuals to show them ''how'' to play it right. Most people countered that if you have to go that far for people to play the game right, that's a problem in and of itself.
** Rumor has it that when Lair was close-to-completed, Sony decreed that it should use the motion controls, since they had recently decided to make a motion-sensitive controller standard equipment. Adapting the game to motion controls ruined the controls in general... if released as intended, scores would have been much higher.
*Gamespot's 7.5 review of ''RatchetAndClank: Tools of Destruction''.
*Gamespot's 6.0 review of ''FireEmblem: Radiant Dawn'' seemed to put the game in the crap pile with Gamespot's other "6" games. The argument was that it had dated graphics and was [[NintendoHard very, very hard]], even compared to other ''Fire Emblem'' games. And they said that the story was crap. And then docked it for not providing Mii support.
** The magazine ''GameInformer'' gave the game a 7 and a 5.5 for similar reasons.
** The game was also given 76 by Australian magazine Hyper, for the same two reasons above. And its obscene difficulty. The same magazine awarded a 85 to ''SuperSmashBros. Brawl'', contrasting with the 90+ scores it had been getting.
* Gamespot also gave a similarly low score of 7.7 to ''SilentHill 2'', a game which received almost universal critical acclaim (average 8.9).
* The uber-anticipated ''{{Spore}}'' is receiving anywhere from 7s-9s. The average critic score, according to [=GameSpot=] is - wait for it - 8.8. [=Gamespot=] themselves gave it an 8.0, Drama indeed...
** And, adversely, people are calling the peeps at X-Play sell-outs cause they gave this game a perfect 5/5.
*Gamespot recently awarded ''TheConduit'' 6.5/10, which again is around 1 to 1.5 lower than what most other reviewers have given it.
** And according to Metacritic, 1UP's C+ rating for The Conduit rounded out to 58.
** Giant Bomb gave it a 2 out of 5. That review was also written by Gerstmann, who notably spent time ripping on the Wii in his ''Twilight Princess'' review as well.
* The original ''{{Metroid}}'' is on Gamespot's list of the Greatest Games of All Time, yet their reviews for the GBA and VC re-releases were very negative.
** Which makes sense. ''Metroid'' is in the list of greatest games for historical reasons, since it kick-started the Metroidvania genre, not to mention the Metroid franchise itself. However, from a modern perspective it lacks the features and atmosphere of the later games.
* Gamespot slapped ''{{Persona}}'' PSP with a ''5.0'' review score. Most sites gave it much higher marks.
* In ancient times, Gamespot gave ''TalesOfDestiny'', a favorite among the [[TalesSeries Tales fandom]], a mere 4.8. They still aren't ready to forget and forgive.
[[/folder]]

[[folder: IGN]]
* IGN's 7.9 score for ''MarioKart: Double Dash'' led to the expression "7.9'd", another name for this trope, and is still used in the IGN community.
** Coincidentally, Gamespot gave it the exact same score. They probably didn't get as much heck for it since they already got heck for giving its predecessor an even lower score: their 1996 6.4 review of the near-universally loved ''MarioKart 64''.
*IGN's 7.6 score for ''KingdomHearts II''.
*IGN's reviews of ''[=~Assassin's Creed~=]'' range from 6.8 (IGN UK)-7.7 (US). It would appear they're not quite pleased with the game's AI. The fans would appear to not be quite pleased with IGN.
* IGN's 3.0 review of cult favorite beat-em-up ''GodHand'', a rating a full five points lower than the reader average of 8.0 and a frequently brought up justification against trusting anything IGN says, ever (especially when compared to their review of the ''CoryInTheHouse'' game, which garnered an equivalent score).
* The ''Imagine'' series always has had flak from most 'traditional' gamers (i.e., male and liking to blow things up), and there was shock, dismay, and laughter when a freelance reviewer on IGN gave ''Imagine Party Babyz'' a 7.5.
** It should be noted that few of the major game review sites will touch games NOT aimed at the young-male market, meaning there's not much to compare that review score to. IGN reviews a number of ''Imagine'' games, and generally gives them scores from abysmal to mediocre... which is much appreciated by people who actually buy these games and would like to know which ones are less crap.
* IGN, again, gave a surprisingly negative score of ''4.5 out of 10'' for the anticipated PS3 [[KillerApp "Halo Killer"]] ''Haze''. And there was much rejoicing, mostly from people who don't like the PS3 very much.
** And the game [[strike:not being that good]] being a complete pile of crap helped.
* In a bizarre inversion, IGN awarded scores of 9.1 to both ''WWE Raw'' for Xbox and its sequel, way out of sync with the games' average scores of 6s and 7s.
** Suspiciously, the review for the first Raw game had quotes from the developer in the text of the review. Think about what would happen if a film critic had a conversation with Uwe Boll in the middle of a review of one of his movies....
* IGN's 7.6 review of ''NoMoreHeroes''. Different sources gave scores in the 8.5 range (Gamespot gave it 9.0, N Gamer gave it 9.4, ''{{X-Play}}'' gave it a 5 out of 5; hell, even IGN AU gave it 8.9).
* IGN's 6.7 score for ''{{Disgaea}} 3'' compared to the average score of 8.13 (before review) primarily for its graphics and lack of improvements. Controversial enough to warrant a second opinion immediately after the review.
** Their 6.5 score of ''SonicChronicles'' (Same average as ''Disgaea 3'' before their review) is quickly becoming another example.
** NipponIchi titles regularly lose points for still using 2-D sprites for their characters. [[PolygonCeiling Because 3-D is really that much better and really that important.]]
** IGN just re-opened the can of worms by placing ''Disgaea 3'' on the "tears" list of strategy games to avoid.
* IGN scores again with ''Wii Music'', giving it a square 5.0 (with the average Metacritic rating somewhere in the sixties range) and igniting more heated debating about IGN's "bias", regardless of whether or not there actually is any bias to talk of.
* IGN has been getting hate-mail over their 8.8 score of the DS port for ''ChronoTrigger''. Others are just noting the irony of the meme actually being applied to a game often heralded as one of the greatest of all time (including by IGN).
** The reason it didn't get a better score was because it was a straight port with lackluster additional content, which seems awfully lazy when you consider that Square gave ''FinalFantasyIII'' and ''FinalFantasyIV'' 3D remakes. This is a common complaint, really.
* IGN and Gamespot's reviews of ''SonicUnleashed'' for the 360, giving it 4.5 and 3.5, respectively. They blamed the Werehog levels and the hub levels for ruining the entire game. And with the Gamespot review, it was rated lower than the universally considered [[DarthWiki/{{ptitlew9bltta3dv6n}} So Bad It's Horrible]] ''Sonic 2006'' (which got 4.0).
** In fact, Sonic fans have been going apeshit over ''Unleashed''[='=]s scores in general, being lower than expectations. They even find it outrageous that the supposedly "inferior" Wii version is statistically superior to its HD counterparts.
** And history repeats itself with ''Sonic and the Black Knight''. Nintendo Power gave it an 8. [=GameDaily=] a 7. IGN? ''Three point nine.''
* IGN US gave ''Football Manager 2009'' 2.0, IGN UK gave the same game ''9.1''. Far from simply reflecting the varying popularity of the game in different regions, the IGN US review compared the game with action football games rather than reviewing it as a management sim.
** And amazingly, the reviewer ''actually recommended it'' for management fans, while clearly hating the game and having no idea of what makes a good one in its genre.
* IGN gave ''TeenageMutantNinjaTurtles: Turtles in Time Reshelled'' a 5.9/10 and cited "unavoidable traps" as a design fault, when, in fact, all the traps ''are'' avoidable; it just takes skill to do so. Perhaps the reviewer is just blaming the game for his inadequacies?
* IGN's 6.5 review of ''[[BackyardSports Backyard Basketball]]'' on the PS2. This review established IGN as hypocrites because they praised pretty much everything about it in the actual review.
** And this is why we have the [[MemeticMutation Meme]] that "You Can't Spell 'Ignorant' Without IGN."
* Inversion: IGN gave ''CallOfDuty: Modern Warfare 2'' a 9.5. But the reader average as of this writing? '''1.5.'''
** It's because of the InternetBackdraft on said game; read that page for the full story.
** While we're at it, IGN gave the Wii port of ''[=COD4=]'' a 7. The reader average as of this writing is 9.1 (and you can guess the reaction from those IGN readers' comments), and [=NeoGAF=] immediately [[http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=378737&page=28 followed suit and called the reviewer out]]. It doesn't help that the review uses screenshots from the ''alpha''.
[[/folder]]

[[folder: Everyone Else]]
* Tommy Tallarico on "Judgement Day" had a VERY nasty habit of this. One of many examples was his review of ''{{Psychonauts}}'', giving the game a 7.5 because its protagonist (Raz) was "annoying." Then Raz went on to be nominated for several "character of the year" awards. The game currently holds an 86% percent positive rating on Metacritic for its PS2 version (considered the worst version available).
** It didn't help that he gave a game that he worked on an 8.0 because of the music (which he worked on) and the fact that it didn't have "annoying footstep sounds." That game? The massive critical and commercial flop ''AdventRising''.
** Then of course there was the time that he gave ''SuperSmashBros. Melee'' a 3.0 simply because {{Kirby}} was in the game. He didn't care about anything else, just that the cast included Kirby.
*** Of course, he probably wasn't completely serious.
** The original ''MetroidPrime'' got a 7.5 from him.
* EGM's Greg Sewart giving ''ChronoCross'' a 9.5, denying it a Platinum Award (perfect 10s). [[SeriousBusiness Some readers began sending in hate mail to Sewart.]]
** Before that, EGM gave ''{{Tekken}} 3'' three 10s and a 9.0.
*** On a similar note, EGM giving ''PhantasyStarOnline'' three 9s and a 7.0, denying it a "gold" award and preventing it from becoming game of the month.
* InsidePulse's game reviews often fall into this category, due to their complete and utter rejection of the Four Point Scale. This has earned them a number of threatening letters from video game companies. Recently, having been caught between their ethics and the game companies, they finally stopped doing numeric ratings at all, instead having a set of clear, unambiguous adjectives to use to rate games.
* It's been argued that the UK's ''Edge'' magazine makes a living out of this, with its notoriously strict scoring system. Some are lamented goofs (''{{Doom}}'' got 7/10 because [[http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2006/20060905.jpg the player could not "talk to the monsters"]] for example), but in most cases, it's simply because the magazine hates to give out anything higher than an 8/10 score. Inverting the trope, when the magazine gives a 10/10 score, all hell breaks loose.
** They just gave ''[[SuperMarioBros Super Mario Galaxy]]'' 10/10 while giving ''CallOfDuty 4'' 9/10. I can hear the COD 4 fans protesting now...
** A spate of seemingly-lenient 10/10 ratings didn't help things. Xbox 360's ''{{Halo}} 3'': 10/10. Wii's ''Mario Galaxy'': 10/10. [[PlaystationThree PS3]]'s ''[[MetalGear MGS4]]'': 8/10. ''Uh-oh''.
* The magazine Game Pro gave the cult classic ''{{Xenogears}}'' an unusually low 3.5 out of 5, a [[FourPointScale score usually reserved for completely horrible games]]. It didn't help that a game with a less fanatical fandom, ''Kagero: Deception II'', was given a 4.5 on the other side of the page. Their major complaint about Xenogears? ''That most of it didn't have much of a plot.'' As per the trope, they received lots of angry reader mail about it.
** Game Pro in general had a ton of these, especially when {{Role Playing Game}}s were concerned. Nobody on the staff had any real appreciation for the genre, so they tended to give poor reviews that admonished the very traits of the genre. They gave ''{{Lunar}}: Silver Star Story Complete'' a 2.5, complaining that the game was a remake of an older game and making a point over how the auto-battle system is flawed. Then in what can only be interpreted as a cynical review, they gave ''Lunar: Eternal Blue Complete'' a 4 star review without really describing the game.
** A PlayStation Game Guide from said magazine lists ''{{Xenogears}}'' at 1.5 out of 5, as a result of an "updated" score or some other HandWave.
* Not so much lampooned as ''harpooned'' by the comedy site Something Awful. An infrequently updated section of the site called "Truth Media" publishes excessively critical and factually incorrect reviews of hyped games, films and so on. They then harvest the delicious backlash for the amusement of their readership.
* An issue of ''PC Gamer'' printed a letter from a reader decrying their score of "only" 90% for ''{{Quake}}'' while awarding ''DukeNukem 3D'' a score of 93%. Their response - "only?" Note that at the time, a game with a score of 88% or higher was recommended without reservation. Even now, that line is at 90%.
* ''{{X-Play}}'' gave ''FinalFantasyVII: CrisisCore'' a 2/5.
** Then, in a CrowningMomentOfFunny, they "re-reviewed" it due to the backlash...only for the review to actually be the same as before, but with an angsty teen fanboy's voice complimenting the game dubbed over any criticism.
* A ''FinalFantasy'' review site [[http://www.eyesonff.com/ff1/parties.php reviewed all of the different party combinations for]] ''FinalFantasyI''. However, his blatant dislike of the Black Belt made him refuse to see any good of having one, and he rated any party with a Black Belt unfairly low. In fact the [[GameBreaker all Black Belt party]] was rated at 0, even lower than all Black Mage or White Mage parties who simply put do not have the defensive/offensive power (respectively) to win the game. After public outcry he reluctantly gave them a better score, but after brooding he went back and gave the all Black Belt party a -9999 on a scale of 0 to 10.
** Revised to a -43/10 as of 3/19/09
* Edge Magazine rated ''MarioKart Wii'' with a 6/10. Average on Metacritic: 84/100.
* Even though he doesn't actually give out scores, Ben 'Yahtzee' Croshaw's (even more negative [[AccentuateTheNegative than usual]]) ''ZeroPunctuation'' review of ''SuperSmashBros. Brawl'' managed to cause mass amounts of controversy as soon as it was released. The fact that he actually made a video ''responding to it'' for the first time doesn't help either.
** The situation seems to be repeating itself again in his recent review of ''BionicCommando Rearmed'', whereupon he insists that the remake could have been better had it not followed the original game as precisely as it did, and that nostalgia in itself is a futile emotion.
** To be fair, Yahtzee's not exactly the type to play FightingGames and personally doesn't understand the genre (and prefaces his reviews for ''Brawl'' and ''[[SoulSeries Soul Calibur IV]]'' with a warning about the latter). The fact that his reviews of ''Brawl'' and ''SCIV'' cover everything '''except''' for the multiplayer (which is the main draw of most fighters) should be a clue.
*** But then again, he has gone on to say that he doesn't care about multiplayer modes at all, and that a "perfect" game shouldn't need to be excused by its multiplayer offerings. SoYeah.
**** Did you miss the point where I said multiplayer is the ''main'' draw of most fighting games? Multiplayer's not an "excuse" for most fighting games - in fact, they ''are'' the game in most games in the genre.
***The only problem with that idea is that the whole "SuperSmashBros" series is all about multiplayer, with single player modes an after thought (Just look at the first and Melee's single player modes. Its very obvious that its a multiplayer game first and foremost.)
** Mind you, this backlash came after fan incessantly berated him for not reviewing SSBB. The negativity came at least partially from his irritation at having to do the review in order to shut them up.
***But in his Spider-Man: Web of Shadows review, he decided not to review the other often requested games. So he had the ability to just say "No" and review another.
***Of course, the Web of Shadows review was done almost a year after the SSBB review, so it could be said that he just finally had enough.
***It should be noted that in his Haze review, he voiced the intention of always giving games a chance, so that may be why he acquiesced at all...and we all saw how that turned out (not to mention Resident Evil 5, Gears of War 2, FarCry 2, and of course...)
* Gamer website Eurogamer.com has a review up for ''Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots'', in which the site gave the game an [[http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=143797 8.0 rating]]. The fans decrying the review as lies, as well as being biased towards the Xbox 360 in the article's comment section (over 1700 replies and growing) were especially troubling, as ''many of them hadn't played the game yet at the time of review'', since it hadn't been released at that time.
** ''Edge'' gave the game the same. Revealingly, the praises and criticisms in the 8/10 reviews are the same as those listed in the 10/10 and 9.5/10 reviews given elsewhere, so clearly it's just the numerical stamp of approval the fanboys are gagging for.
** [[http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/6/13/ This]] PennyArcade comic illustrates yet another [=MGS4=] example.
** [=MGS4=] is a particular magnet for this because not-perfect review scores are almost universally in agreement that the game falls just short of perfect for just one single major issue: long cutscenes. Naturally, since long-time fans of the series with emotional investment in the plot view the long cutscenes as a ''good'' thing, they're not liable to understand why others might consider it a flaw. The fact that professional reviewers seem like they ''never'' have that same emotional investment in the games they review is only gas on the fire, too...
* Most hilarious example of all time would be [[http://www.oldmanmurray.com/longreviews/60.html Old Man Murray's review of]] ''[[http://www.oldmanmurray.com/longreviews/60.html Freedom: First Resistance]]''. Almost the entire thing is a rant about how the game '''"[[ExplosiveInstrumentation BLEW UP MY MONITOR.]]"'''
-->''"At this point, you might be wondering whether my monitor was about to die anyway. All I can say is that why don't you try using that same logic on the surviving family members of people killed in a plane crash and see how it holds up there."''
* "[[TheAngryVideoGameNerd This]] [[{{Castlevania}} game]] [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4we8iFk-fY sucks]]." (Though, as the Nerd points out himself in an interview, it was a joke review, with a lot of mistaken viewers taking it seriously.)
** That's not to say the complaints wern't genuine, of course.
* A shocking inversion of this and HypeBacklash occurred when 1Up gave ''Wii Music'' a 9.0. Fans immediately jumped down the reviewer's throat due to their massive buildup of negative hype accumulated over months.
* The magazine Hyper just gave ''DeadSpace'' a 6/10 and ''Sonic Chronicles'' a 4/10.
* [=NGamer=] faced heavy criticism after "only" giving ''SuperSmashBros. Brawl'' a score of 91%. In response they gave away a free gift of a 95% sticker to paste over the next review score you disagree with.
* Gametrailers' 6.7 for ''{{Banjo-Kazooie}}: Nuts & Bolts'' compared to the average 8. Though one of their criticisms was the old and tired TheyChangedItNowItSucks towards the vehicles, which most got over it...
* When PSM was under the command of Chris Slate, they'd sometimes have a highly-anticipated game wanked over in the reviews... and come review month, it's on the cover. And it's rated lower than the game of the month (the game that scores the highest that year). Lampshaded when a guy sent a letter to them asking why they had ''GoldenEye: Rogue Agent'' on the cover, and gave it a six-point-five. One of the editor's responses? "[[NeverTrustATrailer Never... EVER... trust a preview.]]"
* An episode of [[http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=8956371&publicUserId=5379721 1Up's Retronauts]] discussed ''ChronoCross''. The review in question was positive, though it discussed the game's flaws and noted its ContestedSequel status. The webmaster of the [[SmallNameBigEgo Chrono Compendium]] responded with a front-page tirade (later mirrored to the [[http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php?topic=6412.0 forums]]) deriding the credibility and intelligence of the reviewers and ending with a truly epic image promoting Cross featuring "YOU ARE WRONG. SHUT UP." as a caption to a man flipping the bird.
** This was also backlash from an earlier Retronauts episode that noted the re-translated script of the original game on the Compendium's site, then delivered a TakeThat with the exact words of "die in a fire".
* The now-defunct Gaming Intelligence Agency gained some infamy for completely rejecting the FourPointScale in its review of ''LegendOfDragoon'', which they gave a 1 out of 5. With the reviewer specifically saying he'd have given it a score of zero if their scale allowed it. While [=LoD=] usually isn't regarded as a great game, few gamers considered it anywhere near ''that'' bad. The [=GIA=]'s letter column raged with debate over the validity of the score (and the rest of the review, which was every bit as negative as the score implied) for months afterward.
* Computerandvideogames.com have given ''Killzone 2'' [[http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=206497 8.7]]. Stand back and watch the fireworks in the Comments.
** You think that's bad? ''XPlay'' was called biased toward the Xbox and against the game for its review of ''Killzone 2''. The score? ''Five out of a possible five.'' This led to Adam Sessler devoting an entire [[http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3172626 rant]] against console fanboys where he read and mocked several of the comments (including one who accused them of not sounding ''happy enough'' while reviewing the game) and begging intelligent people to start grouping up on message boards just to raise the level of discourse by drowning them out.
*** When Edge gave it a 7, however, shit got real. To put it in perspective, Penny Arcade sided with the people who said it was a sign that Edge had royally screwed up.
* When NGC Magazine gave ''StarFox Adventures'' 72% when most other Nintendo magazines put it somewhere in the 90s, people perceived it as 'punishment' for Rare being bought out by Microsoft.
* A recent [[http://www.rpgamer.com/games/socean/so4/reviews/so4strev1.html review]] by [[http://www.rpgamer.com RPGamer]] of ''[=~Star Ocean: The Last Hope~=]'' resulted in a 2.5/5. This resulted in a slough of people spluttering rage, including several who had migrated from GameFAQs and started up an account on the RPGamer forums specifically to denounce the review, and resulting in what may be the longest discussion thread on a "site update" ''ever''. There was also a coincidental forum bug that changed everyone's avatars to the same ''Star Ocean 4'' avatar, leading some to speculate that the site had been hacked before it was revealed to simply be a recurring problem with their forum software.
** Similar uproars in the past have stemmed from the likes of ''Operation Darkness'' and ''PhantasyStar Universe'', both of which were heavily panned. While all three games were critically panned anyway, the RPGamer scores were dramatically lower than other sources.
* While not giving scores, Insomnia's ''TeamFortress2'' [[http://insomnia.ac/reviews/pc/teamfortress2/ review]]. Bonus "points" for its Eight Point Eightness stemming from the StopHavingFunGuys and "It's not ''Team Fortress Classic'', so it sucks" mentality driving the writing as well as the site admin's SmallNameBigEgo, both of which caused more hysteria on both the site's forum [[http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?t=2659]] and {{GameFAQs}}' ''[=TF2=]'' board [[http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.php?board=437678&topic=48803947]].
** It doesn't help much that his general response to people raising issues was "FUCK YOU YOU'RE A FUCKING RETARD YOUR OPINIONS DON'T COUNT GO FUCK YOURESLF"
* The now-defunct magazine ''GameFan'' had a rather infamous pair of Final Fantasy reviews. When ''FinalFantasyVII'' came out, they couldn't stop gushing about it. Reviewers called it "the best game of all time," "The best entertainment product ever produced," and "a possible life-altering experience for all who play it." Perfect 100's all around. Okay, fine. A year later, ''FinalFantasyVIII'' came along, and the same reviewers trashed it with low scores and general derision. Why? Because it was "the same as FFVII." Especially ironic in that while FFVIII is seen as the black sheep of the franchise in some circles, its detractors dislike it because it's so DIFFERENT from the other titles, not because it's the same. The review also complained about the heavy sci-fi influence compared to earlier games...even though ''FinalFantasyVII'' had even ''more'' sci-fi influences than its successor.
** Similar to GamePro's dismissal of Lunar and Xenogears, GameFan gave ''SuikodenII'' a score in the 60 range and no preview whatsoever. This is very odd considering their editor in chief would and still does go crazy over any game that is 1) Japanese, 2)2D, and 3) is heavily story based, even at the expense of gameplay.
** As far as ''FFVII'' is concerned, the TV show ''Flights Of Fantasy'' (who many tropers now know as ''Gaming In The Clinton Years'') originally gave the game an extravagant thrashing, and even made a special rebuttal to angry fanmail where they contested their fans' disagreements, mostly focused on the game's design similarities to previous Final Fantasies, the tedious and slow combat system, and overarching plot (which, according to them, is too dialogue-driven and broken up by gameplay).
* America is just unkind to the ''DynastyWarrior'' series, giving it lower ratings then they do in Japan. Apparently it has gotten so bad that the third ''WarriorsOrochi'' game has been declared as NoExportForYou (supposedly, mostly due to it only being a cosmetic update).
* Similarly to the above, the UK Official Nintendo Magazine gave ''TheConduit'' a seen as average score, 76%, calling the single player repetitive and it a fun game but no classic. The commentators on their forums basically ripped them to shreds for it, calling them biased towards Nintendo and pretty much everything else, then celebrating IGN's score.
** [[DeadpanSnarker Oh, no. How dare the OFFICIAL NINTENDO MAGAZINE be biased towards Nintendo?]]
* When ''BlackAndWhite'' came out, it was heralded as the best thing since WorldWarTwo ended. Or something. Consequently, almost all game magazines gave it a perfect 100% score (or equivalent). Those who dared to give anything lower [[{{Understatement}} got some less than friendly letters]]. Then HypeBacklash settled in...
* Gaming site Gaming Age (now NeoGAF) was accused of this back when ''NinjaGaiden'' was released, being the only "major" site to give the game a C- instead of the A-s and A+s everyone else was giving it. The supposed reasoning behind this was so that a game on the {{Xbox}}, which they considered a filthy American console at the time, would not overshadow ''TheLegendOfZeldaOcarinaOfTime'' on GameRankings.com as the number one highest rated game.
* ''Official PlayStation Magazine'' gave the PSX release of ''[[StarWars The Phantom Menace]]'' 9/10. Other reviews typically ranged between 'ugly but playable' and 'utter pants'. The review even spawned ''conspiracy theories'' as to why it had been rated 9/10. The magazine's 'Grower and Wilter' feature (where a formerly high-rated game was demoted and a low-scorer was promoted) retconned it to 6/10 and acknowledged the former score was influenced by the general hysteria surrounding the film.
* ''PlayStation MAX'' gave ''TheSimpsons Wrestling'' a low score. Many readers weren't happy.
* The indie [[{{high octane nightmare fuel}} horror game]] ''{{Eversion}}''. was given [[http://www.indiegamemag.com/free-downloadable-game-eversion.html this review.]] from ''indiegamemag.com''. The fans were not happy in the least.
* N64 Gamer gave ''PerfectDark'' a score of 101% and despite a box out section of the review explaining why, the reviewer and the magazine became a subject of ridicule in other Australian gaming magazines, even today.
** The excuse in question was that the game was too advanced for the console and could barely handle it, something that would be seen as a negative point nowadays.
*** Dan Stains from Hyper magazine said this about it:
-->"....One reviewer going so far as to give it 101/100, which really isn't so much a score so much as a logical paradox. Better than perfect? Is that even possible? I mean, even Jesus Christ-The son of god-was only perfect. Was the author of this review saying that PerfectDark is better than Jesus?"
* A finnish gaming magazine called "Pelit" (literally translates to [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin "games"]]) is a strange inversion of this, by sometimes giving 80-88 out of 100 scores for games like... ''[[TheProblemWithLicensedGames Transformers: Revenge of Fallen]]'', and ''Velvet Assassin''. Then played out straight by giving 87 out of 100 to ''Metal Gear Solid 4'' and ''Metroid Prime Trilogy''.
* ''{{Uncharted}} 2'' has secured a spot as one of the greatest games of all time. However, Gametrailers' score of 9.3 didn't intiailly spark outrage, just questioning. It wasn't until they said in the podcast it didn't score higher because it was "safe" - favouring picture stunning graphics, great writing, excellent pacing and so on over a gimmick - that there was major backlash.
* {{Capcom}} can be rather sensitive sometimes in terms of reviews. ''SengokuBasara'' and the GundamVsSeries became NoExportForYou after being given abysmal reviews for one of their games.
** In the case of ''Basara'', the poor sales could be attributed to the massive [[{{Macekre}} Macekering]] the first game received for its localization, all on account of the head director [[DidNotDoTheResearch not doing the research]] and assuming that Americans [[ViewersAreMorons didn't know anything about Japanese history]] and wouldn't be interested in it, opting instead for a [[UnfortunateImplications plotless, all-action game.]]
** In the case of ''Gundam'', well, the reviews were right - ''Gundam vs. Zeta Gundam'' was mostly a [[CapcomSequelStagnation slightly enhanced version of its predecessor]], and the headline feature (Universal Century Mode) would have been fun if not for the fact that about half of the stages are rehashes of one another told from the other characters' points of view. Of course, the real shame is that following that game, Capcom got their act together and started producing sequels that actually ''were'' good and probably would have gotten decent reviews had they hit American shores.
[[/folder]]

[[folder: Non-gaming examples]]
* At a RogerEbert lecture. one of the questioners asked directly why he had given ''FightClub'' 2 stars but ''Booty Call'' 3.
** Two further examples from the Ebert reviews, one rather old and one quite new: the 2/4 for ''DeadPoetsSociety'' and the 2.5/4 for ''{{The Curious Case of Benjamin Button}}''.
*** In another Ebert example: not unlike Yahtzee and ''Brawl'', he wrote [[http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/07/i_am_a_brainiac.html an article]] aimed towards the response to his ''[[Film/{{Transformers}} Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen]]'' review that is basically summed up as "You even ''just'' liked the movie? You're '''wrong'''." Never have we seen Ebert being so scathing since ''{{North}}''. Which leads us to this related point...
*** ...[[http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-bay29-2009jun29,0,6806652.story there's an article]] talking about how ''Revenge of the Fallen'' may become the worst-reviewed movie to surpass the $400 million mark. The article points out how there's a clear disconnect between what the critics are saying and what the audiences want and expect. For the most part, it seems as though critics and half of the ''Transformers'' fanbase hate it because it's really nothing more than [[HumongousMecha giant robots]] [[StuffBlowingUp making shit blow up]] (it has 19% on Rotten Tomatoes), whereas the general audience and the other half of the fanbase love it for [[LoveItOrHateIt the exact same reasons.]]
**** Or it could be reaching profits off the back of the previous movie and fans who will see the sequel no matter how good or bad it is.
** Perhaps the most infamous example is when he gave ''Gladiator'' 2/4, calling it a "muddy looking" and "dimwitted" film with "dull" characters. Said movie would later go on to win the 2000 Academy Award for Best Picture.
** Ebert also got saddled with the inverse of this trope when he called ''{{Knowing}}'', which most other critics hated, "among the best science-fiction films I've seen."
** Ebert has just given [[TwentyTwelve 2012]] 3.5/5 stars. Jesus Christ, just retire already, man.
*** That'd be 3.5/4, actually. And his reason was that the film basically achieves what it sets out to do - blow up stuff - without, seemingly, becoming as annoying as the Transformers example listed above.
*** Keep in mind his star ratings don't always make sense in the context of the review. He gave ''The Manson Family'' three stars for achieving what it set out to do, but didn't exactly recommend it per se.
** Ebert does this a lot. His reason is basically that he compares films to other films of its type, rather than to everything generally. To quote TheOtherWiki:
-->Ebert has described his critical approach to films as "relative, not absolute"; he reviews a film for what he feels will be its prospective audience, yet always with at least some consideration as to its value as a whole.
* Carl Kimlinger's review of ''DeathNote'' [[http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/review/death-note/dvd-box-set-1 at Anime News Network]] in which he gave the thing a C+ was met with much fandom complaining and some bannings for calling the reviewer an asshole on the forums.
** Similarly, his [[http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/review/magical-girl-lyrical-nanoha/dvd-box-set review]] for ''MagicalGirlLyricalNanoha'' was a C-, and put particular (some would say unfair) emphasis on the {{lolicon}} elements of the series. One can imagine the InternetBackdraft that ensued.
* Movie example: Plenty of people have already gone apeshit over IGN giving ''{{Coraline}}'' (the movie) a 6/10 even though the movie ''wasn't even out yet'' so none of the people complaining had actually seen it.
** People do that all the time. On websites where it's possible for users to "rate" games before they're released, it's entirely possible to see games that aren't even officially completed yet with 10.0 scores.
*** Other users will often try to counter these early reviews with 0.0 reviews which, if they even have text, generally consist of rants against people who give games early 10.0 ratings.
*** Something to this effect happened on Metacritic, where thousands of users rated Littlebigplanet with 0.0 scores ''without having actually played it.'' For revenge, thousands rated Gears of War 2 with 0.0 scores ''without having played it.'' Cue wallbanger.
** Happens all the time on [[http://www.rottentomatoes.com Rotten Tomatoes.]] If a movie receives a large amount of positive reviews before its official release to the public in a row, putting it at 100%, the first review to kill its perfect rating will earn no less than 100 comments of people defending a movie they haven't seen and overall slinging personal attacks.
* Leonard Maltin infamously gave ''Laserblast'' 2 and 1/2 stars. The film was later riffed on MysteryScienceTheater3000 and Maltin was mocked along with the terrible film. He also gave ''The Undead'' 3 stars, and was again mocked along with the film, with Mike Nelson dressing up as Leonard Maltin and talking about how stupid he was for giving the film such a good review. To his credit, Maltin appeared on a later MST3K episode and had a sense of humor about it.
** Maltin is famous for his recognition of the fact that all his reviews are subjective and based on his own opinion of the film and that other people will probbably feel different. Combine this with his legendary sense of humor and good nature and you get the reason why despite not agreeing with his reviews people still generally like and respect him, including the guys over at MST3k.
* Music example: Pitchfork Media. They have been known to give negative reviews to what are otherwise well reviewed albums, although many times this has more to do with it conflicting with their hipster tastes. It occasionally goes the other way, also. They're one of the few magazines who thought ''The Final Cut'' was a better Pink Floyd album than ''The Wall''.
*The 9513, a country music review site, uses a thumbs-up/thumbs-down for singles, and a five-star scale for albums. The site constantly gets lambasted for giving thumbs-downs to singles that most other critics like (e.g. Carrie Underwood's cover of "I Told You So", ''all'' of Sugarland's singles since "All I Want to Do"), or giving thumbs-ups just beacuse they like the artist, without really commenting on the work (e.g. any of the last few singles from Gary Allan). The same 8.8-ism applies to their album reviews. For instance, GeorgeStrait (usually a darling of the critics for good reason; he really ''is'' that damn good) got ''only'' 3 1/2 stars out of five for his 2009 album ''Twang'', which was almost universally lauded for having three songs that Strait — who hasn't written any of his songs since 1982 — co-wrote, as well as a Spanish-language cover song, which is a ''major'' departure for a neo-traditional country music singer. Guess which tracks The 9513 critic called overrated.
* All of [[{{Discworld}} Terry Pratchett's]] books have good reviews printed on the cover, but they also all have just ''one'' bad review--the review that infamously called him an amateur for not writing in chapters. It seems to be something of a RunningGag at this point, and nobody takes it seriously.
** One of the later books actually did have chapters.

[[/folder]]
----
<<|CriticismTropes|>>
<<|VideogameCulture|>>