We have to ween gamers (and journalists) off of Metascores. Are you familiar with the difference between Metacritic and Rotton Tomatoes? Metacritic creates an "average", though they do so with an invisible weighted formula. Rotton Tomatoes, on the other hand, simply boils every review down to a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down and reports the ratio of positive reviews to negative ones.

Metacritic has a similar feature, though it isn't the main event. It looks like this:

Rotton Tomatoes is even simpler, with no "Mixed" column, just this:

But wait, why would we want to boil every review down to a "yay" or "nay"? Sometimes it's more complicated than a simple 'yes' or 'no' -- Kotaku be damned!

Well, that's true. But what does a Metascore tell us versus what the Tomatometer tells us? The Tomatometer tells us what percentage of critics enjoyed the film. It's that simple. It also tells us what percentage of users enjoyed the film, which in some cases is even more useful. What does a Metascore tell us? Well... nothing, really. It's a weighted average that stands for nothing.

Let's just think about what this has done to the industry. We'll look at the film industry first -- last year, the film that won both the Golden Globe and the Academy Award for Best Picture (Drama for GG) was Argo. Argo measures in at 96% on the Tomatometer among critics, and 91% among users. Bam, I get it. Lots of people liked this movie. Surely it has a Metascore to match? Nope, its Metascore is 86. And its user score is 78.

Imagine a game with an 86 Metascore unanimously winning GOTY. It's laughable. An 8.5? Game of the Year? Please.

Let's try the previous year. In 2011, The Artist won with 98% on the Tomatometer and an 89 Metascore. Same story.

But 2010 is my favorite example. 2010 film The Social Network measured 96% on the Tomatometer and had a 95 Metascore. But those of you who follow film news know there's something wrong here, because The Social Network didn't win the Oscar for Best Picture that year. The King's Speech did. And that film was at 94% and 88 Meta. A significantly lower Meta than The Social Network -- this would cause an uproar in the gaming community if we had anything as respectable as the Oscars.

My point is that even the films hand-picked as the best in a long-standing, competitive industry often don't manage Metascores of 90 or higher. It's insane to imagine every reviewer giving a movie 4 stars. Someone would give it 3.5 or even 3, and no one would complain because 3 stars is considered a positive review, sometimes even a very positive review. Most games are graded on a 10-point-scale rather than an 8-point scale, though. Can you do the math? 3/4 = 75/100. 75, like the score Polygon gave The Last of Us. This was the second-lowest score counted for the game on Metacritic, and probably the lowest from a site people actually care about. I don't think I have to tell you that there was backlash for this reviewer having the nerve to give a game a 3-star review.

Oh no, here comes Skyrim. The game that all but swept the GOTY awards in 2011 stands tall with a 92/94/96 Metascore on PS3/PC/360. It has exactly one score marked as "Mixed" for the PS3 version -- a 70, which would most likely count as Positive on RT.

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim would have a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes on all platforms. Not one critic had the balls to give the game lower than a 3-star review, to say, "I did not like this game. I played the PS3 version, and it was shit."

I don't want a Rotton Tomatoes for video games because I think it will somehow fix video game journalism. I want it because I think it will finally put a mirror to the faces of both journalists who inflate scores and the gamers who encourage them to do so by discouraging them from allowing their filthy opinions to muddy their reviews. I think it will help expose games journalism as the big (pardon the phrase) circle-jerk that it has become. Because it's okay for someone who plays a game to write on the internet, "I did not enjoy this game, and here is why:" when it goes against popular opinion.

Most of all, a Rotton Tomatoes site for video games would be hilarious. Don't believe me? I present to you my own main event: a list of games released so far this year that would most likely have a 100% approval rating on Rotton Tomatoes based on the reviews counted by Metacritic.

Animal Crossing: New Leaf (3DS)
Asphalt 8: Airborne (iOS)
Bioshock Infinite (PC)
Brothers: A Tale of Two Suns (PS3)
DmC: Devil May Cry (PC, PS3, 360)
DOTA 2 (PC)
Fire Emblem: Awakening (3DS)
Grand Theft Auto V (PS3, 360)
Guacamelee! (PC, PSV)
Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon (3DS)
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine (360)
Need for Speed: Most Wanted U (WiiU)
Pikmin 3 (WiiU)
Rayman Legends (PC, PS3, PSV, 360) (the Wii U version, incidentally, has one 5/10, leaving it at only 96%)
Saints Row IV (PC, 360)
Spelunky (PC, PS3, PSV)
Tomb Raider (PC)
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Blacklist (PC, PS3)
XCOM: Enemy Unknown (iOS, PC, PS3, 360)

I can't continue. Maybe someone else will continue this list, but I doubt it, and I don't see the point, because I've made mine. Do you know how many films released so far in 2013 have a 100% score on Rotten Tomatoes? One. Just the one.

Most shooters would get rotten though considering most of them rarely bring anything fresh to the table.

Ya got me. XD

Interesting idea. I think there should be both, an average as well as the % who liked it.

Rotten Tomatoes did have a video game rating system several years ago. Because reviewers are such dicks about scoring RT had the fresh/rotten cut off at 7/10 and 70% or more games needed to have 7/10 or more for the game to be fresh. These days though they'd probably have to make the cut off 7.5 if they wanted to have most games not in the 90%+ area. There's no essential reason for requiring different cut offs other than the fact that most games critics aren't nearly critical enough.

Personally I think the rotten tomatoes system is better as a meta-measure of games than the meta-critic or Game Rankings system. It takes some of the BS out of arguing over whether 89 or 90 makes for a better game. If game A is 90% on the RT method and game B is also 90% then does it matter if one game averages 8/10 and the other averages 9/10? No, the vast majority of reviewers really liked both games. And people should be confident in both games being enjoyable if the games fit their personal preferences (genre, art style, etc).

I really can't emphasize this enough. Almost every review I read for popular, well-received games reads like a list of things the reviewer liked about it, and a couple of things that could have been even better. Hardly any actual critiquing of game design takes place. It's awful.

Unless, of course, the game is atrociously bad, in which case the review just slams on it as hard as possible. Again, though, very little is gleamed from this other than "don't make your game an unplayable, broken mess, unless you are Bethesda in which case carry on."

If they start considering a score of above 5 as recommended then all games more or less get tomato meter of 90% plus. If they raise that to 7, drop the meter by 10%.

Video games are essentially rated from 6-10 even though it is suppose to be 1-10.

Maybe I'll give this a shot. I have a website, and I can start with a list of websites reviewing games on a single platform.

Would you be more interested in me trying this for the 3DS or Wii U?

Rotten Potatoes

I'm thinking about starting "Rotten 3DS/Wii U Games" with 20 websites, for 5% increments. Here is a possible sampling of them.

Cheat Code Central, Destructoid, EGM, Eurogamer, Game Informer, Game Spot, Gamreview, Gamesradar, Gametrailers, Giant Bomb, IGN, Machinima, Nintendo Life, Nintendo World Report, Official Nintendo Magazine UK, Pocket Gamer UK, RPGFan

Any additions or subtractions you'd like to suggest?