Yakuzaice said:
This philosophy might work if metacritic was actually making the reviews, but they aren't. The problem is most review sites tend to skew scores to the upper half of the spectrum. That is why most people view something below 80 as mediocre. If a site rarely gives scores below a 5, most people will then view a 5 as awful, and odds are anything lower wouldn't have received a second glance anyway. Not to mention, for most people there are more 80-100 games than than they have the time or money to play. So if you actually use reviews to decide what to play, why would you get the game with a 65 when you could get one that is a 90?
|
Which is why people should choose the games they want based first on what they are interested in, and then on some of the review content rather than the review score.
The score/grade at the end of a review should only serve as a summary (or even the summary of a summary if it's one of those reviews that gives pointers on graphics/gameplay/sound etc at the end)... Not, as they are used now, a means to compare games (especially not across genres either, there is an arguable point thet you might want to know which of two similar shooters is slightly better, but even then the slightly is boiling down to a matter of reviewer opinion that you might not have held had you played both)