It's not uncommon on here for people to compare games in terms of quality. Which I think is great, I think such comparisons can make for highly interesting and sometimes even enlightning debates. What don't think is great, is how a good portion of those debates are ruined by someone using Metacritic as a reason to call one game better than another. I say that because Metacritic is not a valid argument when talking about quality. I shall explain below.
Before that though, let me get one thing straight. There is NO way to objectivley call one game better than another. Someone might like CODBlOPS: Declasified more than Uncharted 2, or Halo 4 and that's 100% valid. It's still ok to debate quality because well...it's fun and there are no real consiquences for debating game quality.
Anyways! Lets say you and someone else are debating about which game is better, Halo 2 or Killzone 2. Regardless of which game you like more you have about a gajillion reasons you could bring up as to why you think your choice is better. You may like Halo 2 because you think it has a better story, isn't as dark or gloomy as Killzone, has better multiplayer, and so on. You may prefere Killzone 2 because it's gritty and intense, or you think Halo 2 is too easy, or whatever. The point is that all of those are valid arguments that allow for the discussion to continue and in my opinion make the debate more interesting.
But! The moment that the Halo guy says "Well, Halo 2 has a higher Metacritic rating." That's it, debate ruined. I say that for a couple of reasons,
First and foremost, a Metacritic score is not a trait of the games being discussed. It had nothing to do with the actual game it self, just with what someone else thought of it. It is simply a collection of other peoples opinions.
When someone brings Metacritic into it the debate turns from what game is better to whether or not Metacritic is a valid way of messuring quality, Thus killing the debate at hand.
The Halo guy is also making the assumption that Metacritic = quality. Which seemingly gives an objective, quantifiable number to something that I think is obviously (as I stated earlier) subjective.
Now, don't get me wrong. It's perfectly ok to agree with a games possitive reviews and with the verdict a Metacritic score comes to. But a better score on it's own isn't a reason to argue that a game is better because it doesn't actually give you advantages of one game over another. No one likes a game more BECAUSE of a higher metacritic score.
So that's my take on it. What's yours? Feel free to post below with questions, comments, sugestions, complaints, counter-arguments, or pretty much whatever else you'd like. I just ask that we keep it civil and on topic. This isn't a Killzone vs. Halo thread, a PS3 vs. 360 thread, or a Sony vs. Microsoft thread.
