By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Veknoid_Outcast on 18 November 2013
Edit Thread
Captain_Tom said:
TheEspionage said:

I'm more so asking about the approach people are having on the scores rather than the content of the reviews.  Critics seem to love both of these games but are criticizing certain elements of the game which is dropping the scores.  A lot of people wont read or watch the reviews which is my concern.  Instead they just look at the scores.

And that is the problem I have with metacritic.  If you look at rottentomatoes.com you will see an example of a system that works.  Basically it's a yes/no system that is then averaged into a percentage.  That percentage has real meaning because it means what percentage of people liked it.

I will say that games are more complex, so they should get a different system but at the very least I would suggest an average of scores out of 3:

0 = Stay away.  There is no way anyone could like this.

1 = Not good, but it isn't all bad.  Some people may like it.

2 = Worth playing!  Everyone should enjoy this at least a little.

3 = Great game.  Most should like this.

Then all of the #/3 scores (No decimals) will be averaged into a percentage of what people like.  That way when people see a 75, they will think "Oh well 3 out 4 people like this game, I should see if I am one of those 3!" and they will read the review instead of "75/100?!?! I am not paying $60 for a C!"  and then he/she ignores the game completely.

While I agree that Metacritic is broken, I think in theory it's far superior to Rotten Tomatoes. With the RT system, a game with consistent perfect scores and a game with consistent good scores earn the same "fresh" rating. It's a system without nuance.