By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
pitzy272 on 17 April 2018
Edit Thread
VGPolyglot said:
Intrinsic said:

Ok fair enough. But that doesn't detract from what I(or we) are saying though.

If ou want an overall view of what the average rating was, wouldn't you want that view to be at the very least accurate?

Here's another scenario. Say for instance there is a site called true reviews and has 120 certified gaming publications (they can't all be owned by one person). Spanning across websites and youtube channels dedicated to gaming. All vetted and having a long standing track history and pedigree. All actually get review copies of games from publishers because they aren't blacklisted for doing stupid things like breaking embargos or detracting from review guidelines and spoiling stuff. and that site has an average of 95 for a game.

Then another called quick reviews that has all of the above but is open to everyone else that reviews the game. Even those that just buy a copy at launch then review it after 10hrs. And that site scores it a 70.

Which will you take more seriously?

Metacritic already has vetting though, it doesn't allow every site to have their scores up there (VGC being an example), so I don't think it's an issue.

It is an issue. Did you see the beginning of this conversation? We’re talking about a site (Quarter to Three) that consistently gives scores 30-70 points below the average Metacritic. How do you not see that as an issue?