It actually seems like the site as a whole gives out a lot of 2/10s. Also, given that they grade on a 5 star scale, it makes it kind of difficult to determine which game they consider to be the worst given that all games seem to be guaranteed at least 1 star.

That will depend on which fanbase have more free time to make multiple accounts...

How come metacritic allows any gaming blog to count as a valid review?

Anyone could troll and create a fake gaming blog and start giving low scores.

It's a valid review, I read it and most of what it says is an indictment on not just Halo but all of the other money milking franchises that people are so brainwashed into feeding. And in no way is this review an indictment on metocritic.

Enjoy your game, no need to make pointless threads unless you actually have a point.

Why does Metacritic count reviews from websites run by hobbyists and wannabees?

I checked out this "Quarter to Three" website and it's one of the most amateurish websites I've ever seen. The ugly eyeball logo on the top looks like it was drawn by a 10 year old and the Halo 4 review reads like it was written by a fanboy with a deep hatred of Halo.

Is there a way to complain to Metacritic? If enough people point out how piss poor reviews like this make Metacritic look they'd be stupid not to remove it and other like it.

Doesn't Call of Duty always get ripped in user scores....not that it matters much

LOL

Found on GAF.

3 - a colossal disappointment
ODST - thumbs down (review no longer online)
Reach - 6.5/10 (review also no longer online)

Same author.

Call of Duty is different...it gets hate from every fanbase lol

In Rotten Tomatoes you have to qualify and do a critic submission to count for the site, does Metacritic do the same process for video games?

Yeah, that was my general impression. Last year, I remember it was Battlefield vs. Call of Duty.....Battlefield won.