As part of my ongoing quest to please Beuli2, I am going to be doing a regular series of threads called "against the grain", bringing up news stories which are either overlooked or too big to miss...

I'm certain I'm not the only one who saw Warren Spencer talking about how pleased he was about Epic Mickey "polarising" review scores. A pathetic excuse, the game should have been much better from what people were saying about it...

Or should it?

My point today is this; are we, the so-called "gamers" getting too used to having amazing games given to us on a regular basis, that when a truly different and exciting game comes up, such as Epic Mickey, which then turns out to be "just good" we are truly upset and the reviews are "polarised", or that they "don't get the idea?"

Well, it's currently scoring a highly respectable 76 on metacritic. Unless you haven't noticed, that means "generally positive", and there have been plenty of people in the media, and the public, praising the game for its inginuity. So why all the hate? Have people forgotten how scoring works? Let me tell you what I think it means...

10- Unbeatable-an exercise in perfection.

9- Outstanding- Truly an amazing game, must buy

8- Great- A game which is awesome, but maybe let down by a minor fault

7- Good- Great game, but a flawed premise brings things down

6-Alright- Not bad, but has too many flaws for it to be reccomended. Die-Hards only

5-Mediocre- Your average game, bit "meh", no-one can tell what it should be

4-Bad- Poor premise poorly executed

3 and below-Terrible- Avoid it like the plague and don't think of it again

Why are people expecting every single game to be scoring 10/10? If every game did, it wouldn't be "perfect" now would it? What happens if you get a better game? 11/10?

My point, at the end of all this, is that, don't follow the hype. You make your own mind up. Epic Mickey isn't the first game, FF13, Conduit, Brawl, GT5, Madworld and many more all had the same issues, and no doubt more to come. Don't make a judgement until you've played it, and even finished it.

So? Do you agree? Is this "fair"? Comment below! Also, if, for some reason, you'd like to see previous threads, then here you go;

 1.  http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=120673&page=1 (statistical anomolies with Wii games)

2.  http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=120880&page=1&str=175262275#  (What Nintendo SHOULD have done with the Wii)

Hmm...maybe I've missed something with this one...

why are you so obssesed with beuli2 stop trieng to get his attention, he hates dogs!

And I hate you too.

And I still have to get Epic Myckey. After i get SSBB. And Twilight Princess. I give this thread a 7.7/10, which according to Metacritics, it's generaly positive.

Obviously a game should be scored based on how good it is and not how if it lived up to hype or not. Of course the scoring system for games is messed up and some gamers think a 7 is a bad score, but it really isn't.

:( but i love you, im against darth also!

Charting my progress:

Thread 1: 5.78

Thread 2: 6.5

Thread 3: 7.7

I'm going up! And yes, 7.7 is generally positive, it's scoring higher than Epic Mickey

Though, I also have to get Epic Mickey, AND DKCR, AND any COD game! Backlogs work=less gaming time 

Because he rates everything I do. And he's cool. But he lost his round of newcomer of the year. So I need to soften the blow by making awesome threads. 

Also, he can't hate dogs. He has 2. He doesn't seem to be a dog-hater

MetaCritic expectations are always a good show. Don't get me wrong, the website is a great tool and I think it's a great website, but this year has been testament to why MetaCritic isn't the end-all, be-all guide to enjoyment of a game.

We've had Final Fantasy XIII (83), Alan Wake (83), Fable III (80), Metroid: Other M (79), Gran Turismo 5 (84) and now Epic Mickey (73)... and yet people are loving these games! Some are calling these games their Game of the Year! The horror! The sheer horror!

The fact is, that the final MetaCritic score has its uses... but I think that some people put too much stock into it. I've personally used MetaCritic in a different way. When I see a game (let's use Epic Mickey) and it's many scores, I like to take the highest score (90) and the lowest (40... ouch!) and use that as a range for how people can enjoy (or not enjoy) the game). Can some people see Epic Mickey as a stellar 90-100 rated game? Of course (which includes yours truly). Can others see the game as a largely flawed game? I'm sure that's the case for some people as well.

And as for here at VGChartz and most other areas (which includes MetaCritic), I've never been a fan of the 100 point system. If you take a look at my game collection and its ratings, you'll see that I actually use a 5 star rating. I find it to be much simpler and much more meaningful to my needs. A 100 point system uses Perfection as the higest quality standard (a 100) while a simpler system (such as my 5 point system) just uses my preferences and how much I enjoyed a certain game. So on a 100 point system based on "perfection", Epic Mickey (for me) would probably see somewhere in the 88-92 range (because the game does have its flaws). But with my 5 point system, I awarded the game 5/5 stars because it met my requirements of "I loved this game!".

Another person on VGChartz who uses a 5 point system is Khuutra. He was also a reviewer on VGChartz for a while. One of his most favorite games is God Hand. Now, while he was using the 100 point system based on perfection, the awarded the game a 7.8, because the game, like Epic Mickey, has its flaws. But it's also an incredibly fun and wonderful game to Khuutra, and with his own personal rating system, awarded the game a 5/5.

So yeah, I'm just rambling at this point... but I just think this whole MetaCritic craziness is a little... crazy. People just seem to put too much stock into a system based off of perfection, all while they could be missing out on a great game.