biased scoring and rating games

theyre definitely getting paid off, its called 'sponsored promotion'.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/02/12/evolve-review

it was obvious they didnt even enjoy the game when they played it

There are like no comments on IGN. Did they show huge dislike in the review but gave it a high score?
Or was it a few complaints but not enough to give it a bad score? I don't feel like reading the review right now.

I personally don't really get worked up if review is paid or not. I just recognize its paid off then see it as a crap review. The 240p complaint for a lower score doesn't make sense though. Isn't that a score for system and not the game itself. Its not the developers fault that they have to produce a game with resolution limitations. They should be judged on how well they created the game within the limitations of the system. Not what could be if Nintendo offered a better system.

Evolve was highly pushed everywhere, it got high scores 8.5/10 from lots of big sites. However when they played it for promo they were never really interested or excited. When users got it the avg score was about a 4.5/10. The game was boring and repetitive

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/evolve

"However when they played it for promo they were never really interested or excited"
While no doubt something that could say something (faking enthusiasm is hard to do if you know how to look) might it also be general stoicism? p1ngpong and I once did a switch press event. They had loaded the hall with lots of enthusiastic people (listening in to conversations they had got some of those hired monkey outfits that cater to such things and this case was full of drama students) to demo the games. Our lack of enthusiasm did not go down well among those sorts of people.

"When users got it the avg score was about a 4.5/10. The game was boring and repetitive"
Leaving aside that scores are still meaningless for reasons myself and others already covered then are users and critics the same people? It is widely noted in literature, performing arts, films/TV, music, paintings/photos and other fields of human creativity (and technology for that matter) that those that subject themselves to lots of it start to find things different to those that don't -- I recall once reading a comment on imdb from someone that apparently learned to recognise the different sound stages in the various studios (obviously this was before keying became the dominant method), and you have similar problems elsewhere in the world. If you have made it to the point you are reviewing games you have probably taught yourself some things about games, probably played far more than most in general and in the recent past, have a means of assessment (I read some of the user ones on your link... scattered thoughts is a fairly accurate assessment of that one).
Equally if they were on nice private/unreleased servers with other members of the press (most of whom will not have the time to mess around and will be playing "properly", to say nothing of at least some measure of skill in games) it can change things quite a bit -- I am sure we have all played games where everybody wants to be a sniper and thus tanks the whole team, similar idea here.
Now Evolve likely was a piece of junk (not played it so can't say for certainly, have seen some numbers about it though so it is not unlikely from where I sit). Looking at your link the lower scoring press reviews also all note a lack of long term viability, something which is hard to assess in a frantic pre release type setup.

i used evolve as an example for a reason, because all the gamesites were paid to 'enjoy' it. ign did a live play and they were shilling pretty hard. Yea i bought Evolve too and was very dissatisfied. Evolve actually became a free game too but its not fun and thats why nobody even remembers that game or even kniws ita free to play

"there were lots of 10s for CELESTE because of this that and this yet none of them mentioned the 'graphics' which would clearly be a 1/10"

I thought Celeste's graphics were great. The pixel art was good and there were plenty of particle effects to make things look even better. The character portraits and CG scenes were cute. Are you saying the game did the pixel art style poorly, or that you just don't like that style, so it's automatically 1/10?

"But when it comes to some games i hate when people try to justify score based solely on a books cover or in this instance (Monster Hunter), graphics."

Pretty ironic you say this right after saying that you think Celeste should've been given worse ratings because you don't like its graphics style.