A better system than Metacritic? Halo 4 really at 90.9%

[Veknoid_Outcast]

kain_kusanagi said:

bananaking21 said:
this is ridiculous, why cant people just accept that it isnt performing as high as they expected? every game gets its fair share of bad reviews. you guys are literally saying "lets take out all the bad reviews because we dont agree with them" and the op is saying "lets choose which reviews we want to take, and get the average out of the reviews we picked". is metacritic perfect? no, but guess what, all games go through the same thing, all reviews are taken and average is taken from the scores, whether its mario, halo, uncharted, CoD, or games like pitfall. the same rules apply to all.

 

Yes the same rules apply, but the same reviewers aren't used. The only review sites that get tallied every time are the top ones that go out of their way to employ enough reviewers to review all the latest games. Halo 4 is getting what amounts to troll shots because a few websites are using it to garner hits.

As for your the top 10 websites in the OP. I didn't pick them so much as grabbed them from a list of top gaming websites. I didn't choose the scores and find the websites. I grabbed well respected websites and found the review scores for the list.

What I'm proposing is that a set of 10 websites be used for ALL future arrogates. That way we don't have huge divides in the quality of the reviews uses to average it out. The same top websites will always produce quality reviews with integrity. I find it a little insulting, but really not that insulting, that you would think I went out and found the best scores I could. If I wanted to list ten perfect Halo scores I could.

But the utility of Metacritic, and sites like it, is in providing a heuristic tool for consumers who want to see the critical consensus for a particular game. Limiting the reviews to only ten wouldn't make it a very useful tool. In theory, Metacritic should become a more helpful site as more and more reviews are added.