its not about the websites, its just what your suggesting is doing the same thing as metacrtic but limit the websites, which in my opinion is wrong, its limiting the people you can give there opinion on the matter. i do have a suggestion though, how about we just cancel scores all together? make the reviewer say what he wants about the game and thats it, you doenst have to mark it, i really think that would be the best possible way to have reviews

I agree that sites like Metacritic should include publications like the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, Entertainment Weekly, etc. And they should exclude blogs with 100 followers. But sometimes websites or magazines fall into a gray area that's difficult to define.

If Metacritic wants to be as representational as possible, it needs to include as many scores as possible. Sure, some of those scores will be falsified, but the idea is to get the average.

The other problem is that some of the credible review sites aren't as credible as their viewership and staff would suggest.

I agree with this. At least to me, the utility is that it compiles all the reviews in one place, so you can read the ones you want to read, whether positive or negative. The problem arises when people put too much importance on the aggregate score itself.

@kain_kusanagi

Id qoute but doesn't let me do it on my laptop for some reason anyways I remember playing batman arkham asylum and thinking it was the worst most trashiest game i've ever played imo id prolly give it a 3 or 4 outta 10 but yet that game has a 91% on the metacritic does that mean im wrong?

Pretty much this.  Metacritic is for people too busy to read individuals reviews and just want a general idea of the quality of a game, or for people looking for bragging rights because their system's game scored 0.43% more than the one on the other system.

The only other reasonable approach, as has already been suggested, would be to discard a number of the lowest and highest scores and then calculate the average.In the end though I don't think it's really worth it and you'd be better off finding some reviewers/websites whose tastes fall in line with your own. 

I learnt, long ago, not to lose any sleep over Metacritic or Gamerankings scores as they are often, for my mind, significantly off the mark.

I trust IGN as much as any established website.

Sorry, but Halo 4 is not the only game that has to deal with those troll reviews so I don't see why it suddenly justifies to change the whole system just because your favorite franchise got trolled. The 2/10 is an extreme case for sure. But there are other examples of bullshit out there, even from the big sites. My favorite example is that RE Rev has the same score as Tekken Prime on EDGE. I disagree strongly but I manage to dealwithit.gif

I love it when some people accuse Sony fans of meltdown over reviews, yet Halo fans do the same. Based on Metacrititc alone its no way GOTY material, but who cares, right?

Enjoy the game, don't obsess over reviews There is no problem with the review system, you just have to find reviewers whom suit your gaming taste.

I think its actually at 94 (360) on metacritic. Personally, I would only give it around a 5 or 6/10, but what do I know?

Yes.

j/k But do you honestly think the game is that bad. I mean if you really sat down and made a list of pros and cons, would it really be as bad as you think. If you look at the merits and what it is trying to do, did it fail? You don't have to like the end result, but a reviewer should try to look past that.

A movie reviewer can hate a child's film, but give it a good score because it's a great kids movie. A game review can dislike FPS but give a game a good score for being a good FPS.