artur-fernand said:
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". 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 |
The problem is that for most game-reviewers, 7/10 means average, which is why Metacritic treats 74 as average. On the other hand, movie-reviewers tend to actually use the full scale, which is why a movie that has a rating of 72 is considered good. So, I think if game-reviewers would also use the full scale, Metacritic would reflect that.
I do agree that rotten tomatoes has a better system and that 5/10 should mean average and not bad. I'm not sure about your last point though. Sometimes a game that's good on one system can be much worse on another, because of screen-tearing, more bugs, or stuff like that, and I guess it's good that this system is able to point that out.
