pokoko said:
They shouldn't feel obligated but reality probably means that some publications are afraid to go against the grain. People often talk about "click-bait" and websites using low scores to draw viewers but I'd guess that established publications feel a lot more pressure to bump up scores. In fact, it would be my guess that there are more inflated scores than deflated scores on Metacritic. It's a much smarter practice in the long term. What if a website that scores 70-level games on Metacritic as 50-level? That might not be so bad--but what if they scored a 90-level game at the 70-level? What if BotW or TLoU showed up with a 75? It wouldn't even matter if they explained their scale on their website, the backlash would be instant and vicious. Besides that, they'd certainly earn the "biased" label with many fans, even if they were fair across the board. Most likely, even some of the people arguing that 50 should be average would be outraged if their favorite flagship got less than an 80. I can say without doubt that I'd adjust the scores for such a reason if I felt it necessary for the security and continued existence of my business. |
That's on fans who place way too much weight on a game's metascore. People were throwing fits even here when Breath of the Wild fell a whole point to 97 after a few slightly lower scores for it came through, as if it made any actual difference. You might be correct on some sites giving games higher scores because they fear a backlash, but I find it rather appalling that a sites or reviewers integrity is lost simply because some "fans" feelings might be hurt. Getting angry at review scores in general is such an amazingly childish thing to do anyway
