i have 1 main issue with metacritic:
in ANY scientific experiment, and believe me id know...anomolous data is excluded.
this is because it can skew the data and conclusion of an experiment when there obviously a data point which is not representative of the norm.
anomolous data CANNOT be included because of the chance that the data point was externally influenced or contaminated. therefore it is not accurate and cannot be considered.
look at the metacritic selection for Muramasa.
HOW ON EARTH can the review of 30% be included, from a very dubious review, when there are 49 other reviews rating this game 60% and above.
This review score should be documented, of course for completeness sake and fairness, but excluded from the conclusion and final result as it is obviously contaminated. (and terribly reviewed imo :))
its criminal that the average is skewed by an anomolous figure.
Therefore i do not trust the average scores, as i do not trust that the data isnt contaminated and quality controlled.
i build my own average from what i read in the selections listed.
My god, if scientists worked in the same way metacritic does, we would have suffered some huge medical catastrophe by now, and if i operated like it at my work, id get fired!
Muramasa: the Demon Blade
