The First thing I want you to do is think of your favorite Games. Now are they the highest rated games or not? This is the first thing you need to do before proceeding.
Better Metacritic doesn't mean better game
You may be sitting there thinking "Nooooo! You can not argue with factual number evidence." But here I am arguing it and here is why. Metacritic is based off of taking reviews around the world wide web and averaging them into a complete score. The original reason for metacritic was probably meant for finding good games, music, and movies based off of an average opinion. However over time as Metacritic got more popular along with the internet this site that was intended for good purposes became console war ammunition.
Old vs the New
First Let's take a look at older games like Gran Turismo, Halo, and Zelda Ocarina of Time. I see many people considering that these are some of the best games of all time and while this is true it is more true because they were the best of "their time". In reality if you face off these games with todays games then they are no longer the best games. Even games like Ryse and Knack if reviewed in the year of 2000 would likely have recieved 90 plus metacritics.
Halo vs Halo 4
When I played Halo: Combat Evolved in 2002 I was blown away by the universe, the AI, and the story. Then a decade later as 343 Industries released Halo: Anniversary I was brought back to reality that their is huge flaws in the game for a 2011 game. It was still great but when i compare it to Halo 4, Halo 4 is vastly superior as it should be in the year of 2012. However the metacritic says otherwise with Halo 4 sitting at 87 and Halo: Combat Evolved sitting at 97.
So what happened here? Was it that Halo 4 is the worst game out of the two? No, it is actually better in every possible way, but Halo was considered the best of "it's time" where as Halo 4 now has competition with games such as Call of Duty, Battlefield, and Killzone.
Gran Turismo and Forza Ammunition
Now lets look at Gran Turismo. This is the one that I hear about the most as ammuinition. Any time a Forza or Gran Turismo game is released what happens? Forza vs Gran Turismo arguments appear and instead of enjoying the game we have people fighting over who has the best metacritic score. Tell me, have you ever heard a conversation like this. Forza 4 is rated 90 so it must be the best racer. No Gran Turismo is the definitive Racer because it has a 96 in 1996.
C'mon guys, are you for real. Gran Turismo 5 may be rated 84 but it is better than the original Gran Turismo for PlayStation in every possible way and the same applies with Forza. It just has a lower score for various reasons as I will continue to talk about in a bit. Once again it is not because Gran Turismo 5 is worst than Gran Turismo, but Gran Turismo was the best of "It's time." But Let's not compare a 1996 game to a game made in 2011
Less Reviews vs More Review (Zelda)
How many times have we heard that Zelda: Ocarina of Time is the best game of all time because of it has a 99 metacritic? Does people also leave out that little tidbit that it only has 22 Reviews? Oh how about Gran Turismo only having 16 Reviews? Compare that with today's games that can manage to get anywhere from 50-100 review on any specific game. The truth of the matter is that one review could hurt any one of these old game's overall scores.
This goes to all old games. The internet along with online reviews were just not as popular as they are today.
Propaganda Reviews/Troll Reviews
These two type of reviews goes side by side. Propaganda reviews would otherwise be known as making one console or one game look better than the other. We all know it happens but to what degree is unknown. Reviewers may like games but we can guarantee you that there are some reviewers who are fanboys of one console or the other. This means that many first party games could be unfairly reviewed whether it be positive or negative. Don't be so paranoid though as I doubt it is a huge occurence but yes it does indeed exist.
Troll and clickbait reviews has become more and more popular over the last few years. It has been heavily scrutinized that Metacritic has even accepted sites such as "Quarter to Three" who has given out infamous reviews such as Halo 4 getting a 2/10, Journey 2/10, and many others well below the average scores.
Now why would you do such a thing? It is simple, these websites get money each time you click to read their review. When you review a popular game and give it a low score it will garner attention. Negative or positive they get money for this. Otherwise "Quarter to Three" would never have even been heard of.
Maybe he genuinely didn't like the games though? That is true, there is that possibility but did those games really deserve those scores? Reviews are suppose to be honest and informing. They are for the readers and are not suppose to benifit your own needs. Even if these reviews were true to his own emotions they are not informative to the everyday reader.
Hype/Fear/Confirmation Bias
This one explains that reviewers will often times by into the hype, the fear, and confirming their reviews before even playing. Once again this does not occur with every reviewer but have you ever been so hyped for a game that you refused to acknowledge its flaws? Then months later youre like ehh, yeah it had flaws. This sort of thing happens, it is simple psychology.
Fear plays a role as well. Take games that are insanely popular and reviewers will have a harder time criticising them due to the flack they recieve from fans. Surely you have seen the threats that gamers make on critics if they dont get the score they want them to without even playing the game themselves i might add. Once again even the fans create a score in their own head before even playing it based off of hype. Some reviewers have expectations to give their fans what they want and with console wars it has become harder on them in numerous ways.
Franchise Fatigue
This one seems to be another one that people ignores which also follows simple psychology. As I mentioned earlier with Gran Turismo and Halo when they first came out people were blown away. We will call this the "wow factor". Then Halo 2 comes out. It no longer has that "wow factor" so it gets a lower score even though it is a better game all around. The same goes for the next game and so on.
Without that element of surprise their becomes no incentive to raise the score. You may still enjoy it but nothing will match the first time you played it. We call this nostalgia. As I mentioned earlier with Halo: Combat Evolved and Anniversary, Anniversary didn't reach the same pivotal moment for me as when I first played Combat Evolved.
The Same applies to any game including Zelda and Gran Turismo.
No Updated Reviews
This one I will only talk about shortly but now that we have DLC and active updates at any given time the game you are playing in a few months after release will not be the same as they were when you first bought them. Let's look at Gran Turismo 5 as an example. Now tell me, was Gran Turismo 5 a better game when it came out or was it better a year later?
See updates fix these problems and DLC adds to the game even further yet reviews do not update with them. This leaves misinformed readers months after the release.
So What is Metacritic Good for if it can't be used as what is the best?
No, it can not be used as the definitive best. Reviewing has changed over time and also has flaws within the system. What Metacritic does do right is help you find good games. This is what it should be used for, to find good products, not penis wars.
