Apparently, Metacritic dont include all Tom Chick reviews.

What do you mean?

I believe the site Quarter to whatever was added in like January 2012. So before then, they werent in the "system".

Their scores are really different from some sites. In a way... isnt that what most people bitch about? How we see 7 as bad yet it is a great score etc? Maybe more should be like that site (despite their low scores being given to arguably very high quality games imo xD)

EDIT: Also, its odd how Meta chooses what sites to add scores to. Like.. there are reviews that are specifically said to be about both PS3 and 360, yet Meta only adds it to ONE of these (usually 360) and leaves PS3 at lower. When looking at exclusives however, the PS3 has A LOT of more reviews (usually, just see Uncharted 2-3 and Heavy Rain. Now try finding any game with that many reviews). Who makes these decisions? lol Thats also why UC2s 105 reviews and keeping 96 is so insane. Like only 1 single score is in the 80s or something OUT OF 105 whereas 38-39 are perfect xD. UC3 is lucky it got 24 perfect scores and managed to outwin that 5/10 from AV.Club due to it.

Becuase you NEED to read the review. 

Who the heck is in charge of Metacritic games section anyway? Anyone know? 

I bet its Illuminati BELIEVE!

That's the problem. A review of anything should never be based solely on an opinion. It's okay to have some opinion in a review, but the score shouldn't have anything to do with it. Professional reviewers are suppose to be unbiased and look at the pros and cons, not just the cons because tehy're not fans of Halo. The reviewer that gave it 2/10 is clearly not a professional and therefore should not be counted on Metacritic.

I think some people are missing the point... these scorebombs actually do affect sales in a negative fashion, this is not what should happen but it does.  A seed of doubt is all it takes to turn a potential puchaser off in these fical times, so everything counts in the end.

People are stupid f**ks.

So when a great game, or even a good game for that matter gets an over the top drop-kick in the balls score like what's happened here, the game sales suffer.. in turn making the developer suffer due to the publisher getting pissy by proxy.  This in turn hurts us, by way of publishers becoming timid with new innovations and change going forward in the chosen style of game.

As much as it sucks peen, the almighty dollar can either let innovation and positive change happen in a games future, or restrict it - this type of malarky indirectly makes for worse gaming for us, the gamers.

God of War 3 has 101 reviews....almost there. : )

Halo Reach and Mass Effect 2 are at 99 and 98. Alan Wake is at 100. Kind of interesting how this stuff gets screened. I imagine sites sometimes review certain titles. Its hard to imagine a site or publication not writing a review for something like Halo Reach...seems they would post a review for the most popular titles. Maybe its timing? Doesn't metacritic stop adding reviews at some point? Maybe there are more PlayStation centric publications?

Interesting to say the least.

It shouldn't affect sales here though. Call of Duty Modern Warfare got an 88. Call of duty got black ops got an 87.

However, I know it occured, with Fallout New Vegas, obsidian got screwed despite making a deepe game than the original.

This is exactly what happened when Uncharted 3 got a 50/100 from AV club... not much more to say