Ok, go and play mgs3 and sc3, then read Kasavin\'s reviews ;
This is not about opinions anymore. His arguments just aren\'t very good and he omits various keyfactors of those games\' gameplay which are key to their innovation.
A member of the SC board emailed him in reply to his SC3 review. That guy made a very decent and well argumented email with precise critiques why Kasavin\'s review didn\'t hold any ground. THAT is why Kasavin\'s reviews are beyond the excuse of opinion. His MGS3 review was fairly positive but that 8.7 score was a complete and utter mismatch to his reviewtext.
Want me to copy paste all the evidence ? It\'s quite a list, so don\'t hesitate to ask if you wanna do so.
Also, i thought the ground rule of gamesite reviews was to make well informed and well argumented articles about games. The whole essence of a \'review\' is being something more than just an opinion. If reviews were mere opinions than they wouldn\'t have to adhere to rules like \'gameplay\', \'graphics\', \'sound\' etc. These are all videogame trademark parameters which should be used with care in a review. As a Head Chief Editor of Gamespot, Kasavin\'s review do quite bad at those.