There wasn't a hidden agenda with the original intent of this thread. Like so many debates these days, people take the most extreme stance on everything. QB was a surpringly solid game and the 60% ratings seem hard to justify from any standpoint. Even if this wasn't my genre and I hated sci-fi, I would've been able to objectively say there's a lot of high quality aspects to this game if my job was to evaluate games. If someone said this game was boring or didn't keep their interest, it would be a valid opinion. If my job is to rate games and I was playing a new game with some unique gameplay aspects, high production values and there was no game breaking issues with the controls, I can't figure out how that equals 60%...which means crap on every scale.
What am I trying to say? My original statement was simply a reaction. Beyond that there are plenty of topics it could lead into.
Saying that I question the review methods is not the same thing as saying I believe there's some giant grand conspiracy. Jeff G at Giant Bomb has never struck me as grossly anti-Xbox and I've read many of his reviews since the OG Xbox days. I think he's entertaining and offers good insight too. He does admit that he's fatigued by Microsoft's obsession with guns and cars and his sentiment isn't unique. That shouldn't stop him, Gamespot or anyone else from being professional and giving each developer a fair review regardless of who's publishing it and which platform it's on.
I do think many genres, developers, publishers are favorites and they get leeway and free passes. Others get no leeway. Do rooting interest play a part in that? I think so.
Some places are harsher than others though. Edge is notorious for giving out more low scores.