By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
yvanjean said:
DonFerrari said:

Thanks for backtracking.

Not liking a game isn't the main metric for any score. He is reviewing a game not scoring his enjoyment. Unless you find it acceptable if I would score Halo a 0 because I totally don't like the game.

Only a moron would give zero to a game that is not completely broken ... but Metacritic has often been criticized for taking 5 point scales review at face value. 

5 point scale which reviews games based on 5- Strongly Satisfied 4 - Somewhat satisfied 3- Neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied 2 - Somewhat Dissatisfied 1- Strongly Dissatisfied result in score of 20% and 40%. The reviewer are not really bashing the game has unplayable but rather their scale is different then the rest of the industry.  But, if people actually read review instead of simply looking at the score they would understand what is going on. 

If you remove both 40% review the metascore would only go up by 0.96 ((100 / 85 reviews * 80%) - (100 / 87 reviews *40%)) X 2 reviews.

You gone to their review? I don't think so.

https://www.videogamer.com/reviews/detroit-become-human-review is 4/10 so it isn't a 5 point scale.

http://www.digitallydownloaded.net/2018/06/review-west-of-loathing-nintendo-switch.html they give half star as well, so another 10 point scale.

So your whole premise of they giving 5 point and based on how much they like the game (which isn't even a good way of reviewing games, I don't want to know if a reviewer like the game I want to see what is the game) is dead wrong.

And considering digitallydownloaded gave 9/10 to the game I gave the link I have very hard time accepting that this game is a whopping 50 points out of 100 better than Detroit.

Or that this game http://www.digitallydownloaded.net/2018/05/review-happy-birthdays-nintendo-switch.html is perfect and Detroit dwelves on the broken side of the scale.

Please keep defending that they were totally professional with both 40/100.

And no one is saying the average would change much (although it would keep the 80 it had), but that both are at troll level clickbaiting side.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."