Why a game with a lower review score could be better

[sales2099]

pokoko said:

Metacritic is kind of crap. I feel kind of bad for anyone who takes it as gospel.

Just think about how ridiculous it really is: you're taking bad reviews from bad web sites, reviews from sites that use completely different grading methods and scales, reviews from writers that have different tastes and preferences than you, then you're combining them with reviewers that you actually like and respect, and you're giving them all the same exact weight.

Why would anyone really care about that?

"Well, this one writer I like gave it an 8/10 but this other guy I don't know who writes for a site I've never heard of gave it a 4/10--Ohmygod, it only has a 6/10 average?  What the hell!  I can't play this junk!"  

Um.....Metacritic is pretty clear that they give weighted averages. Like a Gamespot/IGN/Game Informer review is worth more then a few reviews from a smaller, lesser known source.

It isn't perfect, but it is actually the best system have have. Trusting one review over 4 dozen.......hmm what to pick.

What does need changing is peoples perceptions of games in the 70's. I personally think 70's games are just as worthy of ones attention, but we seem obsessed with 80+ games. Anything below 70 I think we can safely say that the game has enough faults that can really detract from its strengths