| 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. It's also why its odd to compare previous titles really. "X game got 95!" , "Y game got 92!". Both times change expectations and the first game has the natural advantage of being first. But it also depends on the reviewers. If you have 50 reviewers reviewing game X and another 50 reviewing Y => It's hard to just compare numbers since the people voting could be so different.
|
I had arguments with two different IGN editors about this a few weeks ago. From what I gathered they're either drinking a whole lot of kool-aid and they're oblivious to the current trend happening with reviews, or just trying to keep their jobs.
I am the Playstation Avenger.
|
|
