TRAVIS!!! said:
I don't see what's supposed to be so terrible about Metacritic. It's just a site that collects as many reviews as possible and gives out an average. I think what can be terrible is when people decide not to buy a game because the metascore is a little too low, or when developers don't get as much money because their game didn't hit 90, but none of this is Metacritics fault. |
Yes, the point is that many people skip games just because it's on the 70s. This 0-10 scale has turned 6-7 games into "bad" and 8 is "okay" apparently. Metacritic is terrible because it uses a MASSIVE 0-100 scale. Plus, Metacritic considers a 74 game as "average".
Ok, isn't the average a 50? A 74 sounds like something fairly above average. Take something like RottenTomatoes: it gives you a percentage of reviewers that though the movie was good, regardless of the score they gave, and then a little consensus about the film. Of course movie critics are terrible too, but the site is pretty good.
Another thing is that Metacritic has pages for the game on each platform, which is pointless. Here's a pretty good example:
Good:
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/lara-croft-and-the-temple-of-osiris
Average:
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-one/lara-croft-and-the-temple-of-osiris
