I don't see anything about Metacritic on that image. I don't disagree about Metacritic not being irrelevant, but it is certainly flawed, in more ways than one. However my issue was in the way you argued your opinion (ie. "publishers use xxxxx, so xxxxx must be good!"). (some) Publishers also give us day-one DLC, microtransactions, etc. and that doesn't make those practices good.

Also, even if that image had quoted Metacritic, that wouldn't have mattered. I never said that any game that uses Metacritic in its marketing is shit. I was talking about Metacritic itself, not the games themselves. And as I said, I don't think Metacritic is shit, just flawed.

Played and completed all 3 Rocksteady and don't feel the need to do it again. I guess its good for people who never played them the first time around.

I never said that.

All i said is that i found hilarious how there are still some people that believe that Metacritic is irrelevant, when it is obviously not.

So in other words, you and i agree with the idea of a very relevant page, yet flawed.

Antoher clear example of Metacritic relevancy:

http://news.xbox.com/2016/01/04/greatest-games-extends-to-2016/

Microsoft talking about the famous "Greatest Games Line-Up in Xbox History"

At the bottom of the page :*Based on data via Metacritic

EDIT: Of course the page is flawed! It is including a 4 out of 10 review for Uncharted 4

I believe those who question the relevance of Metacritic do so in the context of its critical legitimacy, not in the context of its effects on the industry. There's no denying Metacritic is important for advertisers, publishers, and developers. Whether or not the site points at any kind of objective truth or whether it's a useful tool to measure quality is up for debate.

Agreed!

I have them all on Steam already, otherwise i'd definitely purchase.

Definitely getting this!