Grampy said:
Some reviewers score higher and lower than the average and that's fine. But then we would hope to see somewhat the same high or low pattern across other consoles. Metacritic is the average score given by multiple sources with different scoring systems. This average, imperfect as it is, gives us an approximate baseline of the consensus. Sometimes a specific reviewer will be way different from this average. This particular game just pissed him off or rang all his chimes. That happens, but an individual review 30 points off average should al least be infrequent and the incidence should show some balance between platforms. When you look at X-Play and 30% of their reviews for the Wii are 30 points below average and yet their reviews for XBox and PS3 are never that far off average then I call that bias. It's not a question of them being totally anti-Wii. In the games they liked they actually tended to be slightly more generous than the average and they have given Wii games 100 (5 stars) it's just that in ALL the games they didn't like, they didn't just score them low, they didn't just score them lower than the average, they scored them waaaaaaaaaaaay below the average and they scored them lower than ANY other reviewer. I think this is unprofessional but I would dismiss it if they did the same thing to other consoles but they don't. If this isn't a consistent pattern of bias then I don't know what would be. |
You know, I find it utterly fascinating how some people see what they want to see and only what they want to see.
I also think most of the problems you have consist of X-Play having a 5 point scale which translates into no 7s or 9s (I don't remember X-Play giving halves back when I used to watch it). Look closely at that chart above at the metacritic scores and look at the cluster of games in the 60-80 range to see what I mean.
