yo_john117 said:
NotStan said:
JustThatGamer said:
Who cares what its Metascore is, Metacritic is a dodgy corrupt business with bribed averages covered up as 'weighted averages' and every game is based on a different number of reviews and different cherry-picked publications, some of which have such poorly written reviews it's astonishing how their scores are even being used by Metacritic.
Comparing games Metascores is useless like for example God of War III based on 101 reviews averaged 92.71% and was rounded down to 92% even though it got no average or bad scores and most reviews were 92+ so there was no reason to round down, whereas Zelda: SS got a 3 average reviews and more lower scores which according to Metacritic should weigh down the average but in this case they rounded 92.68 based on 81 reviews up to 93%. COD: MW2 (360) also was bizarrely rounded up from 93.19 based on 100 reviews to a Metascore of 94. So you see in my example, all three games average 93% (based on Metacritics chosen publications), but the vast majority of people wouldn't bother calculate actual averages like me and would assume the other two games scored higher than God of War III.
Metacritic is total shit, I wish people stopped checking out that site and never mentioned it again, sorry for my little rant I just think people should either read reviews from publications you like or play the game and form your own opinion without having to consult Metashitic or anyone else for that matter. |
I see that was time well spent, adding up all those numbers..
Kinda sad I must say, so you butthurt because in some cases they round up and in others - like your most favourite game evaaa they round down makes them a rotten publication? Wow..
|
Lol actually they put different weight on different reviews. A review from IGN has more weight than say a random no-name review. His whole rant is pretty ridiculous though.
|
His whole rant AND the fact that he has probably spent a good portion of an hour to tally up all those numbers is ridiculous.
