spurgeonryan said:
HigHurtenflurst said:
3.5/5 *100
The problem with that though is the scores don't neccesarily gel together.... Admitedly most (probably like 2/3rds) of reviewers use a stupidly over 'accurate' score out of 100, whether that be literally a percentage or out of 10 but to 1.d.p. makes no difference. As foolish as I think that was of scoring is, something lke Metacritic would be ok if all the reviews used the same scale and metacritic didn't mess with the average in any way. It would just be an average score and while it wouldn't mean a great deal, it could be an indicator of a games quality just due to "wisdom of crowds" effect.
As it is though, many of the reviews included in Metacritic use different scales, and some may use similar scales but have a totally different interpretation of what they mean (though it's rare to find a game reviewer who gives average games a central score in their scale anymore). Metacritic tries to "correct" this using heuristics but it's just trying to find a solution to a problem that shouldn't exist, and they also weight reviews even if they use the same scale anyway.
|
Shoot! I thought 3.5 out of 5 was good. Even 3out 5.
|
It may be. Neither you nor Metacritic know what the 3.5 score given means to the reviewer without reading the review. It may be that the particular reviewer avoids using 5/5 as much as possible due to some ridiculous belief that only "perfection" can get a perfect score (that shouldn't be what scores are for, they are meant for comparing games against each other not against something impossible to create) which means 3.5 is only 2 marks down from the games reviewed as amazing. Or it may be that the particular reviewer truely uses a scale to compare games so that even 2/5 is considered average.
In both those cases 3.5/5 is a good score
People should stop fixating on scores, even aggregated ones.
