Kantor said:
And then those same people claim that metacritic is awful and should not be trusted. Use IGN, seriously. All of their reviews are well-written and properly scored. I can't say the same about EuroGamer, Gamespot and 1UP. And guess what? All three of those publications' scores contribute to the metascore, EuroGamer with its MGS4 8/10, Gamespot with its Tools of Destruction 7.5/10, and of course 1UP with their Resistance 2 B+ (the same people that gave Soulcalibur 4 an A). Metacritic is not a gauge of quality. It includes various publications that base their reviews on five minutes of gameplay, or a trailer, or another review. The three I named are among the BEST that metacritic uses. Also, the X360 has more games, and more high-rated games, in general. You know this, OP, so I'm going to assume this is a joke post... EDIT: Are you honestly going to get less enjoyment out of an 89, compared to a 90? Is an 84 fundamentally worse than an 85? And these keep changing, so a game can, indeed, go from being an 89 to an AMAZINGLY DIFFERENT 90+ AAA title as time goes on, and vice versa.
|
Just because a certain game website or magazine didn't give your favorite game a good enough score doesn't mean they can't be trusted. Whats great about metacritic is that it takes almost every review on almost any given game. It takes the ridiculously high and the ridicuously low review scores and what comes out is usually quite fair average scores. And you have to remember no matter how good you think a game is that doesn't mean everyone else is goina think the exact same. Games like MGS4 may be an 8.2 to some people and a 10 to others. I'm goina guess that if the tables were turned and the 360 had less high rated games then the PS3, people like you would probably be using metacritic to defend your arguments.
