[stuboy]

Of course it's all very subjective; but yes, I do feel that certainly mainstream sites and magazines do tend to have a herding play-it-safe approach. For example, I remember GTA San Andreas coming out and receiving 9/10 and above everywhere. And yet, although I'd enjoyed Vice City and GTA3, all the silly statistics and a far too large map made San Andreas a boring game for me in the end. I don't think there is as much of a "hate adventures" conspiracy going on as you think - the sad fact is, a lot of rather average or poorly thought out games from today wouldn't pass muster next to Sierra / LucasArts output in the 90s, so why should reviewers fall head over feet for them ten years later?

I always try and score a game based on how much I enjoyed it, period. It might be subjective, but it's the most honest thing to do. A lot of people thought Darkness Within, which I gave 2.5, was worth an extra star. But I didn't enjoy it more than half the time; hence a halfway score. I do try and use the "90s test".