I think the median score would be better. Let's say there are 43 reviews available. The median would be then the 22. highest score, right in the middle range. This would give a better idea of how well the game is received and would ignore such troll reviews....

Well, at least this means I'll probably get a better score in the prediction league  :D



:'D



D,x

Metacritic needs to die.

I thought this too.

The problem is that's not democractic and is simply a tit-for-tat action. The only way to change the system is for the good websites to start rating games like movies are rated, over time things will change. Or they may not, but in any case that is the only chance of change.

Scoring a game down in protest at the review system pleases nobody and more importantly doesn't move things to end goal they are protesting for.

it's interesting how some defend this guy and say it's only his opinion and a review is always subjective. yes it is in parts, someone can love a 70 metascore game and would give it 90 an some don't like a 90 metascore game and would give it 70 because you can still understand why it is a good game if you aren't a hater or troll.

if you watch football/soccer it's simply not possible to say manchester united is worse as the team of your little village you watch every weekend. you can personally think the games of that are better to look at for you because you are a fan of that team but you should be still able to say "yes manu's team is better" and if not, your opinion should never be used to write in a magazine to decide which are the best football teams in your country.

because that's what this guy did, saying with his score that it's the worst of all games he ever played and tested. a review is there to be a decision helper for people and with that, he is useless to write these articles. you can give a normal score and people will still understand it's nothing fro them but if you talk as if everything is bad it's hard for someone who would only read this review to understand that it would be good for him.

Obvious troll review is obvious. From someone who actually owns the game.

Damn he must be stopped. That Chick is a bigger troll than Jim Sterling.

this site has lots of 2s and 4s on meta... it must be a 5 star system and he gives one star to lots of games... halo 4 its just one more. all games have this type of reviews that brings the meta score down... no news here.

We need to start a campaign to get them removed from Metacritic.

Italics: Big difference: in football there's an objective measure of overall quality, how much they win. No such objective measure exists for games because fun is completely subjective.

Bold: First of all, he is NOT necessarily saying its the worst game he's ever played. If he's given, say, 35 games a 1/5, then Halo 4 could be 35th worst. (Not to mention he's certainly played far more games than he has rated) The review still has value as a decision helper because people who might find the flaws he pointed out offputting will be warned.

I very much doubt I will agree with him when I play Halo 4 for myself, and it's definitely not the most well written review out there, but he justifies his opinion enough to be more than just a troll in my view.