Inafune (Mega Man creator) praises Fish's for saying Japanese games suck

[Nem]

stealth20k said:
If the best example we have is bad, we dont use it. They pick which ones to track and not to track and it has no bearing on which ones relay info. Its corrupt

I disagree and there are no more legit results than corrupt so I choose not to do it

I would never compare meta critic scores against each other and pretend it means something

You say you're not god yet you're claiming more knowledge without a proper basis. Let us see where your numbers come from. Bring them forth so we can analyse those facts. And by that i mean a credible source and not just your opinion.

This is ridiculous. Corrupt?

The souce is plenty legit. Just because its not perfect in an unperfect world does not make it less legit. I'm sure a collective conspiracy theory is alot more plausable... /rolleyes

Here just for you:

 

What is GameRankings?

Founded in 1999, GameRankings is a site dedicated to aggregating review scores from both online and offline sources, to give users an overall picture of a game's score.

What does it take to get a site included in the composite score?

The requirements for adding a new site are:

• Sites must have at least 300 archived reviews for a multi-system/multi-genre sites, or 100 reviews for single-system or genre sites.
• Sites must publish a minimum of 15 reviews a month.
• Sites must be visually appealing and looks professional.
• Sites must review a variety of titles.
• Sites must have a dedicated domain name with professional hosting.
• Site reviews must be well written.
• Sites must conduct themselves in a professional manner.

If you are the owner/editor of a publication (website/magazine/newspaper) which reviews games and you would like it to be considered for inclusion in the Game Rankings process, please send us an email via the contact below.

Why don't you just use every review you can find in the composite score?

Consistency. Sites scores must effect all titles equally. Let's say a source always gives high scores and it's lowest score ever was an 80%. It would be fine if that site reviewed every game, or at least a good number of games, and affected them all by raising their scores. Then when you compare two games, they would both have been affected. However, if it is from a site or magazine that either, we could only get a few reviews from, or only did a few reviews, then it would raise a small number of games causing their scores to be skewed.

Why are some sites that meet your criteria not in the composite score?

Sites with very short reviews, inconsitent scoring, and limited depth are not included in the composite scores.