MetaCritic expectations are always a good show. Don't get me wrong, the website is a great tool and I think it's a great website, but this year has been testament to why MetaCritic isn't the end-all, be-all guide to enjoyment of a game.

We've had Final Fantasy XIII (83), Alan Wake (83), Fable III (80), Metroid: Other M (79), Gran Turismo 5 (84) and now Epic Mickey (73)... and yet people are loving these games! Some are calling these games their Game of the Year! The horror! The sheer horror!

The fact is, that the final MetaCritic score has its uses... but I think that some people put too much stock into it. I've personally used MetaCritic in a different way. When I see a game (let's use Epic Mickey) and it's many scores, I like to take the highest score (90) and the lowest (40... ouch!) and use that as a range for how people can enjoy (or not enjoy) the game). Can some people see Epic Mickey as a stellar 90-100 rated game? Of course (which includes yours truly). Can others see the game as a largely flawed game? I'm sure that's the case for some people as well.

And as for here at VGChartz and most other areas (which includes MetaCritic), I've never been a fan of the 100 point system. If you take a look at my game collection and its ratings, you'll see that I actually use a 5 star rating. I find it to be much simpler and much more meaningful to my needs. A 100 point system uses Perfection as the higest quality standard (a 100) while a simpler system (such as my 5 point system) just uses my preferences and how much I enjoyed a certain game. So on a 100 point system based on "perfection", Epic Mickey (for me) would probably see somewhere in the 88-92 range (because the game does have its flaws). But with my 5 point system, I awarded the game 5/5 stars because it met my requirements of "I loved this game!".

Another person on VGChartz who uses a 5 point system is Khuutra. He was also a reviewer on VGChartz for a while. One of his most favorite games is God Hand. Now, while he was using the 100 point system based on perfection, the awarded the game a 7.8, because the game, like Epic Mickey, has its flaws. But it's also an incredibly fun and wonderful game to Khuutra, and with his own personal rating system, awarded the game a 5/5.

So yeah, I'm just rambling at this point... but I just think this whole MetaCritic craziness is a little... crazy. People just seem to put too much stock into a system based off of perfection, all while they could be missing out on a great game.

Charting my progress:

Thread 1: 5.78

Thread 2: 6.5

Thread 3: 7.7

I'm going up! And yes, 7.7 is generally positive, it's scoring higher than Epic Mickey

Though, I also have to get Epic Mickey, AND DKCR, AND any COD game! Backlogs work=less gaming time 

well my progress is alittle up and down. i get little to no hits in the MS-Nintendo forums and up and down in the Sony forums, but i started out good with my facts thread.

thought about making another?

my E3 2010 reveiw of MS got alot of hits mostly because it was positive. think it was a B

on topic: expectations come with the hardware. i would ahve given epic mickey 2 out of 5 or 10. it just uninspired

Yes, I was gonna make a couple more today, but work stopped me. Expect to see one in the Sony forums and one in the Nintendo forums on Friday!

As for Epic Mickey, I'll be able to make a fair judgement...just wait until Christmas

MetaCritic expectations are always a good show. Don't get me wrong, the website is a great tool and I think it's a great website, but this year has been testament to why MetaCritic isn't the end-all, be-all guide to enjoyment of a game.

We've had Final Fantasy XIII (83), Alan Wake (83), Fable III (80), Metroid: Other M (79), Gran Turismo 5 (84) and now Epic Mickey (73)... and yet people are loving these games! Some are calling these games their Game of the Year! The horror! The sheer horror!

The fact is, that the final MetaCritic score has its uses... but I think that some people put too much stock into it. I've personally used MetaCritic in a different way. When I see a game (let's use Epic Mickey) and it's many scores, I like to take the highest score (90) and the lowest (40... ouch!) and use that as a range for how people can enjoy (or not enjoy) the game). Can some people see Epic Mickey as a stellar 90-100 rated game? Of course (which includes yours truly). Can others see the game as a largely flawed game? I'm sure that's the case for some people as well.

And as for here at VGChartz and most other areas (which includes MetaCritic), I've never been a fan of the 100 point system. If you take a look at my game collection and its ratings, you'll see that I actually use a 5 star rating. I find it to be much simpler and much more meaningful to my needs. A 100 point system uses Perfection as the higest quality standard (a 100) while a simpler system (such as my 5 point system) just uses my preferences and how much I enjoyed a certain game. So on a 100 point system based on "perfection", Epic Mickey (for me) would probably see somewhere in the 88-92 range (because the game does have its flaws). But with my 5 point system, I awarded the game 5/5 stars because it met my requirements of "I loved this game!".

Another person on VGChartz who uses a 5 point system is Khuutra. He was also a reviewer on VGChartz for a while. One of his most favorite games is God Hand. Now, while he was using the 100 point system based on perfection, the awarded the game a 7.8, because the game, like Epic Mickey, has its flaws. But it's also an incredibly fun and wonderful game to Khuutra, and with his own personal rating system, awarded the game a 5/5.

So yeah, I'm just rambling at this point... but I just think this whole MetaCritic craziness is a little... crazy. People just seem to put too much stock into a system based off of perfection, all while they could be missing out on a great game.

It's an interesting point.  In videogames I kind of feel 50/50 about it.

If the developer is trying something new or at least new'ish then it is going to be that much harder to get perfect vs producing a polished game based on very tried and tested mechanics.

But... so long as criticism is constructive then it's fine, as ideally you do want any rough edges in something new to be well polished next time around (although, sadly, in the videogame industry one rough title can end things pretty quick).

I think reviewers/gamers do probably need to be a little more accepting of some rough edges when something is new... to be too demanding is what stiffles inovation and makes developers scared to try anything remotely new.

I mean, take Mirror's Edge - what are the odds, no matter how talented the team, of making a FPS parkour title with melle combat and minimal focus on shooting and getting the difficulty and flow perfect first time around?

Well, perhaps understandably they didn't, but they came close enough I'd love to see the developer encouraged to refine it and improve it... but that may never happen now due to aspects of reviews and sales.  Instead, we'll probably see two standard FPS.

So I think flaws should be noted constructively, but the market should be more able to differentiate poor execution of something that should have been very good (I mean really, these days how can you mess up any of the core genres and not expect to be called out harshly) vs something that is different enough that there would be almost no way to get it right first time around.

I think Uncharted is another good example - albeit not because of one specific thing.  With that title ND produced a good but not great title and the flaws in pacing, gunplay, platforming, etc. were clear and in particular how the game wasn't perhaps that well balanced.  But look at Uncharted 2... boy did ND learn well.

The bottom line is, making something with very well defined processes and mechanics is easier than making something that doesn't.  Although, even the easy stuff ain't that easy.  I'm still amazed at mid level developers and how they can produce average titles despite the wealth of knowledge around making it clear what is better.

Because he rates everything I do. And he's cool. But he lost his round of newcomer of the year. So I need to soften the blow by making awesome threads.

Also, he can't hate dogs. He has 2. He doesn't seem to be a dog-hater

if people regular posters voted then he woudnt have lost, most of the people who vote their are newcomers, its a really cheesy competition were people vote because they like the avatar of the person or their name, or because that certain person is the host of the competition.