I think they need to be harder arses quite frankly. I especially think they need to dock serious points off for significant bugs in release games. Patches be damned. If it's a single player game that can be fully played off line reviewers need to review the game in the way a person with no internet will experience it. If it's an online game, or has a significant online component then perhaps day 1 patches can be taken into account in a review.
The median metascore for all PS4 games (161 total listed on Metacritic) is 75. This is too high IMO. The median score should be down at 70 or high 60s.
The median metascore for Xb one games is 74, so pretty much the same as PS4.
The median metascore for Wii U is 72, which is a bit better but still not where it should be to reflect reviewers actually doing a good job of critically assessing a game.
Reviewers are not using the 5-6.9 range enough. On Wii U, for example, there are almost as many games in the 50-69 point range on metacritic as there are in the 70-79 point range. This tells me reviewers are a bit afraid to go below the 7/10. There is a psychological barrier at that point, just as there is a psychological barrier at the 8/10 point. though I think the 7/10 barrier is tougher because as soon as a game gets in the 60's or below the perception becomes that it's a crap game, not merely a good game for people who like the genre with some flaws that might put some people off, but it's still worth playing and worth paying for.
10/10s are still being given out like candy by some reviewers. Just not being given out like candy at Halloween at least. Anyone who gives out more than 1 or 2 10/10s per year should be laughed at as having little discernment as a credible game critic.
“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix
