| Samus Aran said: Doesn't this kind of prove how useless metacritic is? Skylanders: Superchargers is sitting at 91% on the Wii U, lol. No wonder people think 85% is a bad metascore, let alone 68% (still too high for AC: HHD). AC: HHD will easily sell more than every Team Ico game combined, despite their games being critical successes. You can add the future sales of TLG in that as well. I've stopped taking metacritic serious a long time ago. Nobody expected this to score high (hence the thread was only made a day later), so it hardly bombed. It scored what people thought it would. |
The problem with people saying metacritic is useless/broken is, they only say it when something they like scores badly or something they dont like scores well, they don't say it when something they do like scores well and something they dont scores badly.
The reality of it is simply this.
The number is worthless as the multiple reviews used to aggregate it.
The only way metacritics score will have any meaning is when review scores do too, and the only feasible way to do that is to have a reviewer who openly states their console bias for each platform, and each of the three reviewers write a review for the game, then average out the two apposing reviews, then average out the result with the fans score. - all three reviewers would score it without knowing the score given by each other.
Eg, nintendo game gets reviewed by all three.
Sony fan scores it 70
MS fan scores it 74
Nintendo fan scores it 80
thus the sites average becomes the average of 72 and 80, which is 76.
Site then has three reviews, one for each fanbase, of a particular game, holds value to the reader since they can see the review from each perspective, and the number holds meaning because it has a reduced chance of being representitive only of bias.
if ALL sites did this, metacritic numbers would be a good representation, until then (wont ever happen) theyre not.
