Many people, including myself, have been saying for a very long time that Metacritic is given far too much consideration.  If you're saying that we get more threads like this around review time, then yeah, we do, but that doesn't change that they're right.  It's not like we didn't see the same thing for ZombiU or The Wonderful 101.

So what?  You think IGN is automatically better than anywhere else just because it's big?  

Because we can't discriminate games. At the end of the day games are all equal and should be reviewed by the same law.

Say NO to videogame discrimination! Indies are games too!

I'm not.  I've been enjoying KZ very much.  Though Knack scores confirmed what I thought I had seen in gameplay videos.  I listen to what a couple of reviewers say not what they score to confirm or revoke what I think I see in gameplay videos released beforehand.  Of course some devs I just don't care (until I saw A4O I trusted Insomniac but Naughty Dog still has my trust)

Thank god those game got average scores.. Now the PS fans can ready their knives to take revenge when the One launch games get average scores... The Vgchartz circle of hate must continue..

......no. It's big because they built up a solid foundation on their delievery of content, as well as *mostly* delievering comphrehensive and reliable reviews. Offcourse many would disagree when their one perosnal favourite game gets a lower score then they wanted, but that is another matter.

I said before, the system ain't perfect, but its the closest anybody can get to seeing what every reviewer on the internet thinks at once.

But let us be honest, we all tend to fall into the same predictable pattern.....we praise metacritic for when our favourite games score amazing, and lament it for when it doesn't. We have to clean up own own personal broken standards before we criticize metacritics.

Speak for yourself.  I certainly do not.  I think it's a horrible system and always have.  They're taking scores from websites that give perfect scores like candy, combining them with websites that grade harshly, and it's supposed to mean something?  Listen, if that works for you, go ahead with it.  I would rather read the reviews.

So, I didn't really grasp everything written in the OP, but I'll try my best.

First, I think the criteria you listed is a bit off. Instead of graphics, physics, audio, controls, and story, I'd suggest graphics, play control, game design, sound, and presentation.

Second, just because a game has more content doesn't mean it's better. A tacked on multiplayer mode offers very little value. In some cases it actually detracts from the overall experience.

Thirdly, multiplatform games typically receive identical scores because in most cases the differences are immaterial. When the differences are noticeable the game that performs or plays better usually gets a few extra points.

I would add, finally, that we should all use Metacritic as a general guide and not as gospel. My advice, as always, is to find one or two reviewers you trust and follow them.

"Score, score, score, score, score, score, score, score, score, score, score... Get rid of fucking score thing & just believe yourself !!" - A wise man.

I love how all these "Review scores are overrated" threads come out after the first party ps4 launch games get bad-mediocre review scores... Insecure much?

Review scores matters only if you are unsure about a game that you may want to get... If you know you are going to get it then you will regardless of the review score and if you are not going to get it, then your not going to get it even if the game scores 10/10... Review scores do matter for a lot of people and its when the meta critic rating goes below 70/100 is when people start to think twice about a game they might buy...

As for games that are like 8/10 vs 9/10 vs 10/10... people should read the reviews before they get it... For example, BF4's campeign is shit but its multiplayer is great so if you only care about online, then you will get that game even if the campeign got a 5/10