Serious thread, skip to the TL;DR if you have attention span problems.

Or at least something similar? Approximately a mean score of 5.0/10 and normally distributed?

But they aren't.

By that, I mean the average game it seems should be around a 5.0/10, and most games (say 68%) of games fall between 3.0/10 and 7.0/10, and around 28% are either between 1.0 and 3.0 OR 7.0 and 9.0, and the final %4 falling between EITHER 0.0/10 and 1.0/10, OR 9.0/10 and 10.0/10.

I know I didn't articulate that well, but basically it seems like game reviews should follow this distribution

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Standard_deviation_diagram.svg

But most game reviewers do not use the lower numbers very often and far, far too frequently give out 8, 9's and 10's.

In fact, given sufficient hype, a game is almost guaranteed to score at least a 7/10 even if there are significant number of complaints about its quality.

**For instance, Mass Effect 3, which granted I have not played, was universally criticized by gamers upon release....yet magically has a 92% rating on gamerankings. This isn't a thread about ME 3, but the general problem of not-so-outstanding games receiving outstanding scores all too frequently.**It seems like games should be reviewed something similar to this where:

1 - horrendous

2 - terrible

3 - bad

4- below average

5 - exactly average

6 - above average

7 - good

8 - great

9 - excellent

10 - outstanding

Given this, we'd expect most games to fall between 3/10 and 7/10....but they just don't. They are skewed towards higher, inflated scores.

**TL; DR** Why aren't game review scores distributed as we would expect - normally distributed with mean of 5.0.....and instead distributed with a strong skew towards high scores?

--