Hey,

So I took a look at a few meta stuff and I just don't get this:
Are they randomizing what sites they add that reviews games?

If you look at for example: Portal 2
You see no review of GameReactor, But they have reviewed it and they gave it a 9. (Checked both PS3, X360 and PC!)

If you look at for example: Killzone 3
You see the review of GameReactor, and they have given it a 7.

There are TONS of examples like these. Also, can anyone find any title at the moment on the X360/PS3 that has over 80+ reviews? The only ones I can find are LBP2 and KZ3. Games like Mass Effect 2, Portal 2, LA Noire or wtf are all ending up on like ..50-60. Why are the PS3 exclusives getting 20-30 more reviews? Isn't it harder to maintain the score once you are having 80 reviewers give their opinion about your game, instead of for instance 50? The chances of it being higher are nothing compared to it being lower.

Bottomline:
Who determines and how do they determine what sites are added to what game?

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/portal-2/critic-reviews

Check again.

1. Gamereactor Denmark

   Apr 19, 2011

   90

   Portal 2 expands on everything the first game did so well and makes it even better. Perfectly paced and adorably funny from start to finish, Portal 2 will keep on surprising you and challenge your wit right to the finish. In brief, everyone should play Portal 2, alone or with a friend.

   • All this publication's reviews
   • http://www.gamereactor.dk/anmeldelser/83540/Portal+2/','s7':'Gamereactor Denmark','s8':'game','s9':'142928','i1':'1107630'}" href="http://www.gamereactor.dk/anmeldelser/83540/Portal%202/">Read full review

Mass Effect 2 (PS3) is a late port.

Portal 2 and LA Noire have not released so long ago and can still grow their number of reviews.

Maybe Gamereactor didn't play the ps3 version of Portal 2 and therefore it didn't get counted. 

You shouldn't try to make too much sense of Metacritic. The idea itself is kinda dumb. Every reviewer uses a different scale. A 7 from a reviewer doesn't mean the same thing as a 7 from the next one or a 70 from another reviewer. Not to mention the reviewers who don't even use numbers, yet still appear in Metacritic.

Only problem I have with that line of thinking on Metacritics part is that Gamepro gave L.A. Noire a 5/5 and it is only counted for the 360 version, even though the review link in the PS3 section for that game is also linked to that review.

In that case shouldn't it count for both?

Then in the case of Onion A.V., L.A. Noire has it listed as "Playstation 3 and XBox360" with PS3 listed first, yet Metacritic decided to only count the review towards the 360 version. The review gives no indication of which console it was played on.

Is it a huge deal? Probably not, but the picking and choosing done by Metacritic can give a false representation and is why the scores should not be taken as a be all end all.

Metacritic shouldn't be picking and choosing who deserves to get the score on their page and instead give those scores to the games the same way the publication that reviewed the game wanted them to be, just like Gamepro did.

People would think that Gamepro didn't even give the PS3 version a score, meanwhile they gave it the same exact score. This Gamepro issue has been present with L.A. Noire since day 1.

Moreover Gaming Age review for LA Noire, which is for both Ps3 and X360, is shown only in the Ps3 section. And it's a 58!

Because GamePro only played the X360 version. Even if you clicked "read full review" in the PS3 version page it will take you to the X360 review. They have been doing that for years.

http://www.gamepro.com/games/ps3/111288/l-a-noire/

The site specifically said that they played it on the X360 version.

http://origin.avclub.com/articles/la-noire,56374/

Again, Gaming Age played it only on the PS3.

Either way that is irrelevant. If the publication believes that score is justifiable for both versions then why does Metacritic pick and choose?

It is a diservice to those who use Metascores to determine game purchases.

What is even funnier is what is listed under that C Plus. It says "Metaconversion = 70" and states that sites like GameRankings and Metacritic should list their score as a 70.

My point is that if it is a multiplat and they play the same, why play it twice if those publications know full well they will rate both the same?

The way MC choose to go about this gives a false perception of said title when compared on both platforms.

Metacritic hasn't been doing this "Only give it to whichever console the reviewer played it on" nonsense forever. I believe it only started a year or so ago.