If you've looked at some of the main websites and have seen reviews lately, you'll see a couple of things. 

First, very rarely does a game get a 6 or under
Second, the more a game is hyped, the better the review is.

As an example lets use Resistance 2 for Playstation 3.  If this game wasn't hyped so much, I HIGHLY doubt this game would've gotten about a 8.0.  If you've played it, you've noticed that multiplayer wise they took out a lot of great feature and substituted them for some online features.

More notabley, the game on SPLIT Screen absolutely SUCKS.  There is no more campaign mode, the graphics suck, the levels are designed for 5 - 50 people for difficulty and with no compaign mode, there is no story or accomplisment to beating each level.  L A M E.

But somehow IGN gave it a 9.5, Gamespot gave it a 9.0 and Tomsgames.com has yet to give it's review.

I think reviewers are missing the concept that just because they like something, doesnt mean everyone else does.  You can't blame them, they are in the gaming industry and if they love online gaming with people from work who share the same passion, they are going to have a different view of the game then people who play games once in a while and hardly go online. 

But the job of a reviewer is to review based on the casual gamer, not the hard core gamer.  Since casual gamers are more likely to visit big name sites such as IGN and Gamespot.net (which is owned by CNET, if I remember correctly, which is owned by CBS, which is owned by Viacomm).

If any reviewers read this, please keep in mind, that video games have a different appeal to everyone and you need to think about that before giving a final score.  If there is a reviewer that would possibly PM to explain HOW IN GAWDS name, Resistance had such a good score, that would be great.   Did you overlook the fact that split screen is useless simply because the game supports 60 people online?