The only thing I would change about Metacritic are the reviews that are accepted. Not by score or game or company or any kind of bias about the game itself. Rather, some games will get garbage organizations or publications giving their review on them and Metacritic will factor them in. Be they good or bad scores, some of those reviewers just should not be accepted for a number of reasons. A perfect example would be Quarter to Three. That place gave Halo 4 a 1 out of 5 and the reviewer said they'd give it a zero if they could. You only give a game a score like that if it's a completely broken, unplayable mess. Judging by the scores given to other games by that place, Halo 4 should not have received such a ridiculously low score. Opinion or not, that just smells so bad of someone who has an irrational hatred towards a particular IP.
As far as the OP's opinion that GTA is not worth such high praise, I disagree. If you want my opinion of a game that was overrated I'd say Super Mario Galaxy and its sequel were quite overrated yet that didn't stop them from being some of the highest critically rated games ever. I would argue that a lot of Nintendo games get a pass simply because they're Nintendo games but then I'd be betraying the fact that games like Grand Theft Auto, Halo, Uncharted, and Call of Duty get constant high praise while not being much different gameplay wise compared to previous entries and my being fine with that. Sometimes you just find that formula that never really needs to change and it just needs minor alterations with new settings.
If you ask me, I'd like to see a ranking site for games that only takes the most reliable and consistent sources for reviews. Focusing on showing you what the most prominent sources thought of the games on average instead of a collective score from everyone and their grandma who doesn't even play games.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
