Using the numbers in the op I calculated an "Average Joe" score of 88.646%

This score is calculated using my copyrighted technique I developed after Uncharted GA got an 80 on metacritic. The influence of the 20% is very small. Heck even removing it the average joe score stays below the mode at 89.210%. So if you guys want a fair score, Halo got an 89.

Since Rotten Tomatoes only goes Fresh/Rotten, we'd have tons of games with a 100% rating.

1- nice work OP, you obviously put a lot of effort, and a good brain-excercise, for me at last.

2- but PLEASE stop with the Halo 4 review threads already. It wont win metacritics GOTY, but who cares? IGN and other big sites could still hand it to it Buy the game, play it, and be glad that its not a 20/100 game like that one reviewer told us that it is...

It happened with the 8/10 from Eurogamer. Imagine a 2/10...

hunter_alien said: 1- nice work OP, you obviously put a lot of effort, and a good brain-excercise, for me at last. 2- but PLEASE stop with the Halo 4 review threads already. It wont win metacritics GOTY, but who cares? IGN and other big sites could still hand it to it Buy the game, play it, and be glad that its not a 20/100 game like that one reviewer told us that it is...

Thing is, its been a rather weak year compared to other years and expectations for some, well atleast me, were that H4 was going to utterly dominte this year. That is not going to happen looking at Meta. Even despite the 2/10 and 5 , 7 etc, The game doesnt even have more than like 8 perfect scores. It might win IGNs and a few, but it is not going to win the majority which might go to Mass Effect 3 or other games. Top 5 this year is still sure. Possibly top 3. There is a site that compiles the awards given. See more of that here =

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=149333&page=1#

Good work on the OP. But you would have to do this for every game with an outlier, like booting out uncharted 2's two below 90 scores.

People need to realize that Metacritic is only a very basic guideline. The whole idea is too deeply flawed to be anything except that. You have different people with different tastes using different scales and methodologies from game to game, it's never going to be perfect. If you had the very same reviewers using the very same grading system for every single game then you MIGHT be able to place more weight on the resulting score but it would still be highly subjective.

Personally, I always think of Metacritic scores as ranges of at least +/-5. An 85, to me, is roughly an 80 to 90 game, and even then, I'm only really going to pay attention to a score if it's extremely low.

Yes, if a reviewer is bad or unfair you should remember and avoid them, but people are getting too outraged over this. I wouldn't trust Jim Sterling to review cat food but it's not like I'm going to stress out over his scores. It just doesn't matter that much.

87% what a shitty game man, thk god I didn't buy that crap, I remember the last time I played an 87% rated game it was horrible

PRE ORDER CANCEL'D. 343 FUCKED UP.

..lol

only Bungie knew how to make good halo games, 343 what kind of name is that. They can't even pick a good name how are they suppose to produce a good game what a shame