anyone trusting Metacritic blindly is ignorant.

When you see the game score of Budokai tenkaichi games, or worse, the master piece Deadly Premonition -_-

People really should learn to read review ( opinions) instead of read only the score...

I don't follow scores anymore - too much bias in gaming media. I go by consumer feedback and a developers reputation (quality of previous games)

gamer opinions and metascore is what I use to select my games, they aren't afraid to say exactly what are the bad points of a game instead of going through em with silk gloves like most reviewers do today for even semi-popular games.

Because gamers are like Asian parents when it comes to ratings on videogames....Anything below 90 might as well be a fail. 

If it was up to me it would be this:

Below 50 - Varying degrees of garbage...from "unplayable" all the way to "playable but why are you wasting your time on it when there are better games out there?"

50-60 - A decent game, but possibly riddled with technical glitches, bad controls, mediocre graphics.......or it's just not that great of a game with no "wow factor" or original concept at all. 

60-70 - A fun game in the right hands, but like the above, may have some technical issues, or just a shitty boring story...and no fun gimmicky new concept or features.

70-80 - A VERY fun game in the right hands, but outside of those right hands its just kind of good but nothing special. A must get for a fan of the specific genre it's in, but otherwise it's skippable. Or could be a sequel to an 80+ type game that does nothing to move the series forward, a half-assed effort on what could have been great. 

80-85 - At this point should be technical issue free, or an issue so minor a post-launch patch fixes it up nice. A unanimously great game, but just not quite for everyone....wouldn't get a score below a 70 (unless some random reviewer just hated it) but would get some in the 70's that bring it down to the low 80's.

85-90 - Issue free from launch, good graphics, good replayablity, virtually anyone who picks it up would enjoy it. A game with this score should stand up as one of the best of the generation.

90-95 - An amazing game. A technical achievement, everyone and their grandmother would like it. Tons of replayability, some type of really cool original concept (or if it's not super original it at least improves greatly on what it's copying)...A must buy for anyone. 

95-100 - A masterpiece. Only games like Ocarina of Time, Uncharted 2, GTA IV/V, Super Mario 64, Pokemon Red/Blue, etc. etc. you get the idea...games of amazing calibre that you should buy 2 copies of just in case the first disc gets scratched and it's too late at night to go to the game store...you need that extra copy because the game is so fucking good you can't miss out on any chance to play it. 

Well 68 might be what reviewers scored it, but what do you "FEEL" it deserved? In your head when you see a 68 do you see that as a satisfying grade for that game? Or do you see it as deserving something higher?

My claim is that most "percieve" a good game in the 70+ range, whether their view is alligned with what reviewers score their fav/hated games or not.

Getting a D (60-69) was pretty hardcore shit on my school.

Gamespot gave Suikoden and Breath of fire 3 and Crash Bandicoot and Destruction Derby lower than a 7.

Dont believe everything you read.

And Brigandine got a 3 out of 10 from IGN lol