With reviewers, it is largely a matter of taste as well. There is a human factor where we use intuition and gut feelings when formulating opinions on games, or anything. For example, Pat Gann scored Rhapsody DS in the 90s and gave it an Editor's Choice, but if I were to review that game, it would have probably gotten something in the 70s and certainly would not get a gold star from me. On the other hand, you have something like Crimson Gem Saga where everything Gamespot's reviewer hated about the game, I rather liked. Kinda like with teaching, you could give the same essay to two different Language Arts teachers and one would give it an A and the other may give it a C+.
Indy- I think it works the opposite as well. People tend to be most enticed by extremes so if a game they are interested in gets below a C grade or above a B grade, they'll want to know why it was so bad, or so good. Kneejerk reactions and all that. Any hate mail I've gotten was either because a reader felt my score was too high or too low.
I think most games period fall into that B-C range, and it's more pronounced since there are more RPGs released than many of us can keep up with. It's like a Bell Curve where the majority part of that bell is the 75-85 range. Most games fall within that range and truly spectacular and truly awful games are the outliers. The black and white. I think most games fall into that big ol' grey area in between and in varying degrees. And even looking at sites like Metacritic or Gamerankings, RPGFan's scores usually aren't too far off from the rest.
blackthirteen- no offense or anything like that taken. You brought up a very valid point and I just replied to it. At the very least, the record shows I thought about it.