Teeqoz said:
I don't see anything about Metacritic on that image. I don't disagree about Metacritic not being irrelevant, but it is certainly flawed, in more ways than one. However my issue was in the way you argued your opinion (ie. "publishers use xxxxx, so xxxxx must be good!"). (some) Publishers also give us day-one DLC, microtransactions, etc. and that doesn't make those practices good.
Also, even if that image had quoted Metacritic, that wouldn't have mattered. I never said that any game that uses Metacritic in its marketing is shit. I was talking about Metacritic itself, not the games themselves. And as I said, I don't think Metacritic is shit, just flawed. |
I never said that.
All i said is that i found hilarious how there are still some people that believe that Metacritic is irrelevant, when it is obviously not.
So in other words, you and i agree with the idea of a very relevant page, yet flawed.
Antoher clear example of Metacritic relevancy:
http://news.xbox.com/2016/01/04/greatest-games-extends-to-2016/
Microsoft talking about the famous "Greatest Games Line-Up in Xbox History"
At the bottom of the page :*Based on data via Metacritic
EDIT: Of course the page is flawed! It is including a 4 out of 10 review for Uncharted 4 
