The question is, does Forza do anything different or new? If not, reviewers will have to deduct points or they run the risk of being labeled as hypocrites.
| Aldro said: Another really odd thing with metacritic is this: Since Meta weighs sites differently: Some luck is ideal. Perhaps you have a guy called Henry working for IGN who gives every game a 1/10. Then suddenly, a game comes and this time its Sam who is reviewing it. Sam is much nicer and gives it a 8/10. Meta doesn't take into account who is reviewing it so it really is a bit ofa gamble. Saying "IGN gave it a 10" isn't the same as saying "Colin gave it a 10" or "Greg gave it a 10" but to meta, its all the same. |
This has always been an issue for me. Take Destructoid, where I used to be a regular. I can tell you now, without a shred of doubt, that Dale North and Jim Sterling are two very, very different reviewers, yet people will still say that Destructoid always reviews a certain way--even now, after Sterling has left. It's just not true. North is one of my favorite reviewers and Sterling one of my least favorite. This is another reason why Metacritic score is ultimately meaningless. We give these few dozen random people way, way too much power.
Personally, I try to find reviewers with tastes that match my own and I give those writers much higher regard than some guy at the Toronto Sun that I've never read or heard of before. That's why an "average" with something objective is kind of ridiculous. Why would I give the opinion of someone I don't know the same amount of weight as someone whose work I like and respect?
The influence Metacritic has over many people is really strange.
