yo_john117 said:
Actually its extremely simple. you have on one end, reviewers that rate a game higher than it should be. And on the other hand reviewers that rate the game lower than it should be. So using simple math you can come to the conclusion that taking the too high and the too low you would get mostly fair results because the highs and lows would basically cancel each other out. Now i know there are exceptions and such, but for the most part most reviews on metacritic are actually fair (especially when you take into consideration that 70 is average) |
This is where I disagree. How do we know that half of the reviewers gave it too high of a score, while half gave it too low of a score? It ussually does not work out to be that perfect. Metacritic scores give a good "rough" idea of how a game is. It is not accurate at all. I like the way my friend Blazinhead put it: you can't compare games using metacritic because the scores are to subjective. but you can sure as hell tell that a game is garbage if the metascore is 40. This is somehwat why I think S.T.A.G.E does not like metacritic etiher. Comparing games is unfair, especially if their metascore is under 5 points away from one another. It's only good to get a rough idea.
