Do you agree with the way people approach metacritic on Killzone and Killer Instinct

[Veknoid_Outcast]

F0X said:

Veknoid_Outcast said:

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.

 

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.

Except RT also tracks review score averages. There's no reason not to use both methods, so we can clearly see how many positive reviews a game has earned, and how much more positive they actually are.

I have no problem with using both methods, but I do find the Metacritic system a lot more useful, when used properly of course.

It's more important for me to know the average score of a game than to know how many people gave it a "thumbs up," because the latter can be misleading.