Metacritic scores aren't completely worthless but they're pretty darn close. Reviews, however, are valuable tools in which to learn more about a game. I like to read several before I buy anything. The scores themselves, though, are only good as a very rough guide.

I've said it before, but my own +/- on a metacritic scores is around 10 points, at the least. That means if a game has a meta of 80, I simply think of it as being in the 70-to-90 range, or perhaps even beyond that.

The one thing that always puzzles the hell out of me is how people lose their minds if someone gives a game they like a lower score. Really, who gives a rat's ass? It's another person's opinion about a game, we read wildly varying opinions on the forums all the time without slipping into rage mode.

And why do people get puffed up and indignant when a game they like with an 85 average gets a 60 but not when it gets a 100? If the outrage is over the size of the deviation, surely one is just as bad a review as the other?

I read like the 2 worst reviews the 2+ best reviews and 2 in the middle. Then I watch some videos and come to my own conclusion.

For me its more like a "what to expect" info.

If the lets say 5 best reviews praise the same stuff then I accept this as a proof.

If lets say some gamespot wannabee reviewer whines about Luigis Mansion 2 not having checkpoints or having a total of 1!!! (ONE!!!!) slightly annoying/frustrating battle and two other "worst" reviews totally ignore those aspects (the single battle and the checkpoint "issue")  then I know this gamespot person is just a whiny fangirl
(that states in her profile Info she loves ghostbusters so she is a Ghostbusters fangirl that is annoyed that LM2 is to similar to her godlike Ghostbusters.... how dare you are a homage to my fav franchise!!!! GRrrrr!)

Probably not. The number of games that score in the 80's is so large, the odds are greater that you'd end up with 5 of yo9ur favorite games in that pool than you would in the 90's pool.

My main point is that even a written/recorded review is useless compared to all of the other ways a person can get information on a game.

It's a good source to discredit Nintendo games. Sales don't equate quality.

Super Mario Galaxy.

Metacritic is really western based too.
Seems you have to add 5 to any JRPG score and subtract 5 from any shooter score. Platformers are weird, some are really overrated and some are really underrated.

Exactly. Great ratings don't sell as well.

I care because I know developers have worked their ass on a game and will wait and see the reception their game get.

Ofcourse I hope for the best for the game franchises and developers I am a fan of. Despite not playing the game myself: You hope the general consensus for the reviewers is that the game is good/great/a masterpiece. (Usually I agree with reviews too so thats another reason). And if you're hyped for a game: There is nearly nothing more exciting than hearing good about it (Aside from actually playing it XD)

I like reading and watching reviews. I usually know what I want 2 buy,but if I don't I just use the reviews as a general guide. I usually do read reivews of movies,before I see it,but that does'nt influence me. If I see a movie and it sucks,oh well,it's only 8-10 bucks,vs 65 bucks for a game.

thing is, a 80 for movies and 80 for games is something totally different and you can't compare those scores.

if a movie get a 65 on average it's something like "it was a really fun movie, just the story wasn't that good", if a game will get a 65 on average it's like "it is still decent for huge fans of this genre but it has some flaws, gameplay is stupid from time to time and repetitive fights can get very annoying, buy it only if you really love this genre"

as example if a game like halo 5 would get a 65 on meta i don't even want to know how fucked up the mechanics would be. if a halo movie will get a 65 i'm sure i would really like it as halo fan