It is impossible to qualify someone else's enjoyment of a game without the ability to read their mind, which is currently impossible as far as I'm aware.  Just as a person who says they enjoyed Halo 4 more than Halo Reach is not wrong.

(Unless you were just trolling.  In which case - you got me!)

Just saying. If you prefer COD:D over universally quality titles.....something is wrong with you and it is everybody elses duty to tell them that.

The crazy thing is Metacritic is just all the websites that people complain about combined into some average. I see people all the time bitch about IGN, GameSpot, and many other review sites, but then turn around and go to Metacritic.

In the end unless the industry as a whole adopts a structure/system like they have for the automotive industry then we will never get true reviews.

Lets take Halo as an example. If someone doesn't like FPS game then right out of the gate you have a biased view on the game. When there is no guidelines in place people can just do whatever they want and do a lot of games wrong. That works in positive and negative ways.

I heard people (Giant Bomb) say the story wasn't as good.

But in the end, HALO 4 has an 87 score......that's successful, so I'm not seeing your point.

And I see alot of complaints like yours about Metacritic....where what you're complaining about, never really seems clear by the bottom line game score.

Had HALO 4 been a 70'ish score, then you'd have a point.

It's not the best we've got. If you wanted to argue with someone over how bad Declasified is you could talk about how it looks terrible, and plays like ass. Simple talking about other peoples opinions about the game isn't a valid way to go about it.

It's not that Halo 4 has a bad score, it's that it has a lower score than other  Halo games, yet it is the best Halo game.

Oh and the story was very, very good.

Metacritic is the cancer of the gaming industry. Few things frustrate me more than when I'm discussing a game with someone and then they claim game A is better than game B because it has a higher Metascore as if a number alone addresses and informs us on all of a games positive and negative points. A lot of people nowadays just can't think for themselves and feel they have to consult Metacritic to justify their opinion of a game, there is no way to say game A is objectively better than game B, everyone has their own opinion and people need to stop thinking Metascores are objective.

I even saw one infuriating fan wrongly state that the Uncharted series is more acclaimed than both the Halo and Gears of War series.... How can one critically acclaimed series be more critically acclaimed than another critically acclaimed series, it's a fact that both are critically acclaimed series but it's up to you alone to decide which is better in your opinion! NOT METACRITIC OR ANYONE ELSE'S OPINION.

Hopefully a few culprits will read this and realise the error in their ways and abandon Metacritic forever, I doubt it though, sadly.

Metacritic is AWESOME.

However, people just use it wrong.


Nothing is quite as informative as going on metacritic and reading a couple of the best reviews, the worst reviews and ones in the middle.

It gives you a good view of what they game is, and isn't based on what they agree with and how they weight the different factors.

I don't think that there is anything majorly wrong with the Metacritic system. The website is essentially trying to provide a means for people to become more informed about entertainment before spending money. It's not perfect, as they sometimes include websites that don't have in-depth review criteria (e.g., some review systems are simply based on like, dislike, or hate, rather than more elaborate criteria such as design or technical performance), as well as review sites with more elaborate review criteria not included, but for the most part, it can usually give an individual a decent perspective on a particular game.

The problem is with how people use the data. Using metacritic to help you make a decision about purchasing a game that you are unsure of is a good way of using the site. However, using metacritic to fuel internet forum arguments, or as a way to hurt a company is when it gets ugly, but that issue is more on the people that use metacritic in that manner, rather than the site.

For myself, I tend to only use metacritic when I'm unsure about a purchase. For example, I'll look up a particular game that I'm debating on whether or not I should purchase, and read a few glowing, mixed, and negative reviews (typically from sites that I've come to respect) before coming to a decision. In contrast, I try my hardest not to look at metacritic and reviews of a game that I know I will purchase beforehand, because I don't want to prime myself of any positive or negative elements in the game. I also avoid user reviews, because more often than not, metacritic users tend to rate games in order to influence a game's mean (resulting in extreme scores, particularly on the negative side), rather than honestly rating a game according to a particular set of criteria.

Giant Bomb says Halo 4 was very good too....just not great.

Which, btw....is what Metacritic is saying....basically.

You've got nothing to complain about, my friend.

Sorry.

http://www.giantbomb.com/halo-4/61-35533/reviews/