What do you mean? Reviewers can get rich. This is a business opportunity if I ever saw one.

I disagree with some. Xenoblade 2 is not a 83 imo. Should be higher. But I generally agree with most of it.

As far as Metacritic goes, or other aggregate sites, I think it is a good way to get a first quick impression and it does add some value. However, the best way of course is to listen to the people you trust the most. Be it a website, or blogger, Youtuber or whatever. It should be up to yourself to decide ultimately.

I don't know about this. I hope it's fine for them.

I'm personally not fond of it. With how significantly general variance can influence the metascore of a game because of small sample sizes (not to mention secondary factors that have little to do with quality, e.g. brand fondness likley inflates the scores of stuff like Uncharted, Zelda, GTA, etc, to some degree), there's very little statically significant difference between an 89 or 90. Even professional polling companies, that are often working with sample sizes of 1000+ people and put considerable effort into weighting those samples correctly, usually have self declared margins of error of 2 - 5 points. Giving a special label to stuff that happens to start with a new digit ends up coming across as a bit silly.

That all said, I doubt much will actually come of it. I don't see people valuing that label anymore than they already arbitrarily value seeing a 9 at the start of a game's score.

I understand where you are coming from, but it's a bit redundant. Every game "isn't" for everyone. Sure there are a lot of 90+ games that are for a very general audience, but an argument can be made that most of them are for a "niche" (or at least one fairly comparable to Monster Hunter, for example). 

Last part is so true.

In my experience on this forum, it seems like most people already just games that score a 90 or higher as "must-own". So I'm not sure it's really necessary. As @Zekkyou said there is some possible consequences. But they are mostly muted by just how little it will affect anything. Truly, a pretty useless idea.

I remember the last time I played a sub-90 game... I've been in therapy ever since.

Stay safe everyone.

People already saw games with 90+ ratings as "must-play", so this is basically achieving nothing.

Here they go trying to tell us what to do lol. Gaming is relative to be honest. The only games on the list from the OP I like are God Of War and Monster Hunter World. Some of my "must play" games I've seen vehement hatred for. To each his own..

90 is such a high cut-off, I hope people don't take this as gospel or anything. I think "Must play" is a very subjective term and it depends on a person's preferences, for example, I personally wouldn't touch the GTA games even with their 97s and 98s on Metacritic.

I like this, it's a well known fact that games with less than 90 are irrelevant.