Seems you still don't know how the system works?

The current generation is coming to an end,and reviewers have to create some new space for sensational ratings(to create a hype etc)They can't go further than 100 but they have already inflated the 90+ ratings-therefor they have to break down the current ratings to make 90+ become again rare and special.
That's why all reviewers are very pleased with the new tomb raider game(a 93% game in 2011) but the metascore is only about 87%.


the other thing:money-many got used to be paid for good reviews,but as the current gen is ending publishers are going for next gen and care less to pay for a dying system.
You also may have realiesed that some publishers games are rated 5-10%higher than other publishers games though both produce games with the same quality.Some publisher simply pay for more reviews.

Just take a look at Sim City-the first 6 ratings average was about 93%,and the average dopped down to 40 or so.
Let's ignore the drm or server problems,but just concentrate on the game.
The gameplay was dumbed down,the maps too small,the creative control was reduced,the AI is really bad and there are so many flaws and bugs in this game that you cannot rate it better than 70% even if there were no problem with drm,servers,always online and cloudgaming
the game is still a beta-there is 0 chance to reach such a high rating.
Maybe one reviewer is an incompetent fanboy to give such a high rating,but not the first six in a row-and than the rating to go down in such a radical way??impossible
it's pretty obvious that they were paid for good ratings to create a momentum for a hype.

For me that list is Naughty Dog, SSM, Suckerpunch (not on many lists but through 5 games I've never been disappointed), and...I guess that's it.  Used to be Insomniac but their last 2 Ratchet games were abominations to me and I had completed every Ratchet 100% until A4O which I never even bought because the demo and reviews were so horrid and every piece of press just turned me off more and more.  FFA was an OK game I guess but tower defense isn't my thing and it shouldn't have been a R&C game and now Fuse is looking generic and unimpressive.  After Resistance 3 I thought they could do no wrong.  They had made my favorite game of this gen (ACiT) and probably my favorite FPS ever (R3) in successive years then they raped my favorite franchise ever in successive years and now I'm just waiting for them to earn my trust again.  It's been such a quick fall I really can't explain it.  I mean September 2011 wasn't that long ago.

when I have a powerful enemy I throw all the other ones at it until they're used up then it's simply dodge, square, square, triangle rince and repeat lol.  Still they throw curve balls so such strategies don't get you through the whole game.  I find all the secrets in GoW games since it's normally just a matter of going the opposite way on a path from where you're supposed to so I never worry about the orbs.  I go back and play through the series in chronological order about once a year and just play on easy on NG+ to have fun ripping apart everyone again.

yeah santa monica has a way with treasures, they use the fixed cam to hide them, but once you get to know how they use it finding treasures isnt that really hard. and its not a matter of worrying about orbes, its a thing of getting them faster in the game i already have all my weapons fully upgraded, just the weapons you use with the L2 i didnt touch, dont really bother with them. 

and yeah that technique works, but its much slower and as i said, i could kill the little guys for magic and health, something i usually do, to help me kill the bigger monsters

I don't trust reviews from people I don't know. If you think a game looks cool, watch videos, play the demo (if possible) and read up on the story/ features and decide for yourself.

Your post made me think of this:



OT: Honestly, this whole metacritic thing is getting out of hand. You should read the content of reviews and use that to judge whether the game is going to be right for you. For example, I find the Atelier series fun. Professional reviewers do not. If I relied solely on their ratings, I would never have got into the series. Instead, I read the content of their reviews and decided "hmm, all the things they're talking about sound quite fun to me", so I bought a game and there we go.

Why would the new GOW be 90?  Explain please.  And dont get fooled by the 79  which is basically a 80 and this is just 5 off from your 85-90.

beginning and final bosses are some of the series' best, a couple little nuances to make it smoother (autosave and level select, while not ground breaking, are new to the series so should be chalked up as an improvement).  Elemental powers are a nice addition without trying to force weapons other than the blades on you.  It's very challenging and has some new combat nuances that make it a little deeper.  The visuals I didn't think PS3 was capable of (once again lol) have been achieved so a little credit there.  Overall I'd give it a 9 cause that's what I think of GoW3 as and this one was on par and gave me a fun new romp so it didn't feel stale.

Any game that rates below 100% is utter junk. Who would want something with a 95%?! Step up your standards, Galaki!

Okay makes sense.

TBH I also think every game should be rated on its own merit. I mean if you( the reviewers )played GOD 1+2+3 and the PSP parts and the new one  well....  GOOD FOR YOU! 

Same goes for Mario games.  But reviewers somewhat forget that NOT EVERYONE played the previous entries. So saying  its actually better than the predecessor but then giving it a lower rating because its too much of the same  makes NO SENSE and distorts the truth (and might confuse potential buyers)

P.S. I just watched a short video (a digital foundry video?)  and yup the game looks really gorgeous!