Pfft, i thought we settled this matter way back in late 2008 round here.

Not it won't. EDGE only reviewed the PS3 version.

There are more reviews for the PS3 version. Several of which aren't flattering.

of course it's flawed. Statistically, with different numbers of reviews for the same game on different platforms, different numbers of reviews for one title vs another plus their own 'guesstimating' of reviews that don't provide scores it's a given.

Metacritic shouldn't be used for anything other than getting an idea, for that individual game, the general spread of the reviews. The second you compare one metacritic game score to another you're in error, the second you take the average score at face value without checking how many reviews, which was the highest, which was the lowest and the general spread of reviews you're flawed.

But most people want simple, quick info without worrying too much about any (statistical) bias or flaws it might contain.

Nope. Same with DI, only the PS3 review is on meta...Meta is only valid for exclusives.

only 360 only magazine/sites were given a 360 version. Every other major publication was denied rights to review an xb360 version because of the outlash it would cause.

The X360 only reviews are obviously skewed and paid for. It deserves half whatever the ps3 gets.

Metacritic was just as flawed six weeks ago as it is now.

Haha that is actually quiete a killer, can't wait to see people rubbing it in my face, that the Xbox version is superior because of meta score :D :D :D.

It's not a flaw, it's an aggregate. Thre are 3 "Averages": the mean, median and mode. Mathmeticians really have never decided what the "best" average is, it's a case by case basis. What metacritic shows is the mean score. Meaning take the scores, add them up and divide by how many scores there are (plus weighting but we can leave it out of this discussion). Each of the average types have strengths and weaknesses (for instance the mode is the most common number in a set, so Uncharted 2 would be 100 on this scale, in fact we'd have a lot of 100's this gen if that was the case, not very helpful) and the median is arrived at by listing the numbers and finding the right in the middle and taking the mean of those two, which isn't very helpful either as outliers would put a lot of games way lower. So unless you can come up with a brand new type of average that no mathmetician since ancient Egypt has been able to come up with, it's as good as it's going to get.

Metacritic has always been flawed, simply because of the long list of self proclaimed reviewing sites run by "gamers" that have their scores influence the average score. Some reviews are just terrible, not in terms of score, but their contented and do not deserve to be on that list.

"Yeah I played this game for like 27 hours in a day and the graphics sucks. The gameplay is just bad really bad. I don't even have to explain why it's bad, your a dumb fanboy if you disagree with me"