It's funny, he says, "Spartan Ops is impressive...'great moments you have in multiplayer', the handful of awe-inspiring set pieces from the singleplayer - it will certainly stand the nostalgic test of time."' Yet the game gets a 5.5 for being too much like Halo. 

Congratualitions you know basic math.

i said READ his FAQ:

Q: Why did you give Journey a 40%?

A: I didn’t. Quarter to Three uses a five star scale. One of the reasons I avoid percentage ratings is that too many people associate it with grade school, where anything below a 70% is a failing grade. Any scale where only the top third of the ratings is considered acceptable is a broken scale. Which is fine for children doing multiple choice questions about The Scarlet Letter, isosceles triangles, or the capital of France. But adults evaluating entertainment should be afforded the full range of any ratings scale.

I have a feeling you didn't read the link. They're different grading scales. For them, one star is probably comparable to the industry standard of a 40-60/100.

No, I said 20/100 because this is how Meta translated his 1/5 star. 

well its just one review, it really doesnt matter much and thats the hole point of metacritic, to not depends on one review but all of them and give an idea of how reviews see the game in a general sense. now would i agree with the review? most probably not. but at the end it doesnt really matter, it wont affect the overall score very much

What I mean by "unbiased mind" is that the reviewer should already dislike the thing before they begin. That's why I gave the example of my distaste of sushi. Lots of people love sushi so my opinion of it only applies to me and is not helpfull for someone looking for a good sushi bar.

 Sushi is very popular so it isn't is shit even though I hate it. Halo is a very popular series so the series isn't shit. Halo 4 is getting a vast majority of very good reviews so it isn't shit even though a few reviewers, who obviously just don't like the type of game that Halo is, dislike it. So I ask, what's the point of a hater reviewing that which they hate? The answer is that it is as useless as a review from a blind fanboy tossing out praise as if it's better than sex.

90 to 89 to 88 to 87. 

As a Halo fan, this bothers me very much. Im sure you will be too with the game you love (whatever it is).

Ugh.

well my bad.

The point I was making is BLAME meta to those who think he gave it 20/100

From what I read he seemed like he was just expecting more and things that he liked from the older games got taken out of this game. Doesn't mean that the game in itself sucks or is broken.

It is similar to say Nintendo games, where those who have played every mario kart will be like meh it is just mario kart with a few tweaks. New people who haven't played it may give it a better score.

Essentially what I am saying is he is using his benchmark, whatever it is in his head and saying this doesn't meet it, therefore I'll give it this.

I am sure if the scale was a 1 to 10, where in his words 7 is considered a pass, he probbaly would have given it a 6.

It bothers me because I predicted 91 in the Halo 4 review thread :) Oh well, can't win them all.

But why are so concerned about the aggregate score? As long as the game is available to you, and as long as you get enjoyment out of it, why do you care about whether Metacritic reads 90 or 87?