Yeah but for too long between 07-11 were games really nicely reviewed for being more of the same. You'd have annual Call of Dutys score higher or equal to its predecessors which led to many people feeling reviewers were just being weird. I'm not sure if it was like that prior to 07 because I wasn't really around then.

But what I am getting at is that by 2011-2012, things somewhat started changing. Reviews were suddenly harsher and it doesn't seem to be changing. It is as if the standards are simply being raised which is in some ways about time. But it also makes predicting things a lot harder.

Another really odd thing with metacritic is this:

Since Meta weighs sites differently: Some luck is ideal. Perhaps you have a guy called Henry working for IGN who gives every game a 1/10. Then suddenly, a game comes and this time its Sam who is reviewing it. Sam is much nicer and gives it a 8/10. Meta doesn't take into account who is reviewing it so it really is a bit ofa gamble. Saying "IGN gave it a 10" isn't the same as saying "Colin gave it a 10" or "Greg gave it a 10" but to meta, its all the same.

It's also why its odd to compare previous titles really. "X game got 95!" , "Y game got 92!". Both times change expectations and the first game has the natural advantage of being first. But it also depends on the reviewers. If you have 50 reviewers reviewing game X and another 50 reviewing Y => It's hard to just compare numbers since the people voting could be so different.

However there is one trend that isn't changing. And thats a game like GTA, TLOU and Bioshock. Games that are so .."good" I guess we can call them, that reviewers pretty much worldwide and a vast majority just give out 9 or 10. It's still luck based to compare 94 to 95 to 97, but generally regardless of who reviews it: There seems to just be something that makes nearly every single person appreciate it.

Not to mention the reviews being seperated by versions which is absolutely ridicilous. You'll see a review of a game in one version without it even mentioning what version it is. Or youll see a review of a game in one version when the text clearly indicates that they tried it on all platforms. Who the fuck makes these calls lol.

It also leads to multiplatform titles having less reviews per single platform and generally: adding reviews when a game is holding a high score will most of the time work against it since it only takes about 1 guy to give low to drop it heavily whereas it takes 10 guys to keep it there or bump it up.

So yeah... interesting times.

Given what's been happening lately with game scores I'm expecting them to score between 8-15 points lower than I predicted in the metacritic thread.

nope, should arrive along Spinal's combo videos.

OK suckas, here goes. Forza will score the highest, maybe a weak 9.
KI will follow with a strong 8 at best.
DR3, will score a 7 if the tech issues don't make it unplayable, way less if so.
Ryse, also a 7 but I'm hoping that the story is great, if so then obviously higher.

There is my highly optimistic projection.

After seeing the predictions you guys had for Killzone and Knack, there's no reason to pay attention to this thread lol. 85-95? Haha nope

Ryse could get picked on, since GOWA wasn't very well received, I just dont think hacknslash games impress anymore.

DR should do fine, an par with 1 & 2 but laack of next gen visuals could hurt.

Forza, king of racers should be the best reviews launch game but the small track list and car list could hurt its chances of topping the best racing game of all time, Forza 4.

Forza - 88-91
DR3 - 75-79
Ryse - 68-72
KI - 76-80

I think all except for forza will score similiar grades like killzone. forza will be a solid 8 or better.
overall I don't think it matters because I don't think there are alot of people who buy 5 games on launch.
an let's not forget that there are some big sellers there on launch day. Bf4 Cod AC4 fifa nba etc

mmm...., I'm surprised about the severity of Killzone reviews....I think is more based on the fact that people don't love the game rather it's bad. But..., with Ryse and Dead Rising 3, i expect the first one to receive very mixed reviews and been something like Knack...., some 4's..., some 8's...., a 60-70 on metacritic at the end. And Dead Rising 3 it should be like Killzone SF, around 70-80. Forza 5 will have around 80-90 on metacritic being the most consistent next gen exclusive

What I think is the mantra in most sites is "We don't need this gen yet, and these games shows this, you must wait".

The question is, does Forza do anything different or new? If not, reviewers will have to deduct points or they run the risk of being labeled as hypocrites.

This has always been an issue for me.  Take Destructoid, where I used to be a regular.  I can tell you now, without a shred of doubt, that Dale North and Jim Sterling are two very, very different reviewers, yet people will still say that Destructoid always reviews a certain way--even now, after Sterling has left.  It's just not true.  North is one of my favorite reviewers and Sterling one of my least favorite.  This is another reason why Metacritic score is ultimately meaningless.  We give these few dozen random people way, way too much power.

Personally, I try to find reviewers with tastes that match my own and I give those writers much higher regard than some guy at the Toronto Sun that I've never read or heard of before.  That's why an "average" with something objective is kind of ridiculous.  Why would I give the opinion of someone I don't know the same amount of weight as someone whose work I like and respect?

The influence Metacritic has over many people is really strange.