There's been a lot of mediocrity this gen. I'm glad reviews are harsher.

It's still to high. Look at this, the 2nd big french gaming site :

http://www.metacritic.com/publication/gamekult?filter=games

90% of this thread "Too much water" jokes.. .

At this point, I wont give a crap about reviews

Games are actually adequately reviewed just like last gen. Its just that we had loads of hype for some games and they were actually not as amazing as what we expected. All in all its about on par with what the games deserve, nothing really wow me on the PS4 this year and the games, while good, are not stunning and deserving of high praise.

Their review on MCC is trash. I'd rather not have opinionated idiots review games. Same goes for Tom Chick(QTT) and his terrible reviews which have to include atleast 30 comparisons to other games and sometimes even books or TV and movies for him to have the satisfaction to post the review.

It's the new cool thing to do.

Basically whenever they give a low score, you see people going "finally a reviewers that's use the entire scoring scale". That is unless they are reviewing a game from their favourite company, in which case "they don't know what they are talking about" and the review is "trash".

Maybe some of those games are actually awful.

And we should totally just stab Ubisoft!

I think they need to be harder arses quite frankly. I especially think they need to dock serious points off for significant bugs in release games. Patches be damned. If it's a single player game that can be fully played off line reviewers need to review the game in the way a person with no internet will experience it. If it's an online game, or has a significant online component then perhaps day 1 patches can be taken into account in a review.

The median metascore for all PS4 games (161 total listed on Metacritic) is 75. This is too high IMO. The median score should be down at 70 or high 60s.

The median metascore for Xb one games is 74, so pretty much the same as PS4.

The median metascore for Wii U is 72, which is a bit better but still not where it should be to reflect reviewers actually doing a good job of critically assessing a game.

Reviewers are not using the 5-6.9 range enough. On Wii U, for example, there are almost as many games in the 50-69 point range on metacritic as there are in the 70-79 point range. This tells me reviewers are a bit afraid to go below the 7/10. There is a psychological barrier at that point, just as there is a psychological barrier at the 8/10 point. though I think the 7/10 barrier is tougher because as soon as a game gets in the 60's or below the perception becomes that it's a crap game, not merely a good game for people who like the genre with some flaws that might put some people off, but it's still worth playing and worth paying for.

10/10s are still being given out like candy by some reviewers. Just not being given out like candy at Halloween at least. Anyone who gives out more than 1 or 2 10/10s per year should be laughed at as having little discernment as a credible game critic.

But if the problem is a PSN one that can hardly be blamed on the developer or publisher. Docking points for online bugs needs to be carefully considered as to wether the fault is the developer's or publisher's (in which case punish them harshly) or the platform provider, in which case slashing the review score is not sending the right message and it's being unfair to the developer.

IGN banned me for that. It was worth it though.