AS much as I love Metacritic... because i love their concept of making everything base on 100 points it makes me wonder how they give points to reviews that doesnt give an actual number.

Here is the reviews for Mario Kart 8:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii-u/mario-kart-8/critic-reviews

I noticed that there is one mixed review on the list.... so i read the review to see what he think is wrong with it giving a 70/100 points.

here's the link:

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/05/27/mario-kart-8-review-racer-goes-through-the-paces

As I read the article I noticed that he didn't give an actual score.  Maybe I am blind or in a rush but please explain to me how metacritic compute it as a 70/100 review?

In some cases they may ask the reviewer for a score, but in most I think they make it up (hopefully) based on the content of the review, how positive it seems etc.

Of course it's total BS as it's a metric (and out of 100 which makes it appear 'accurate') based on someones opinion of another opinion.

oh now that makes sense....

3.5/5 X 2 = 7/10

7/10 x 100 = 70/100

OK CASE CLOSE!!!! :P

From what I see, the reviewer scored the game 3.5/5 stars, which translates to 70%.

yeah i didnt see it :P my bad

It has 3.5 stars. That's 70%.

No worries, it's sort of difficult to see the score since it isn't printed in a huge font like it is with other review sites.  I've always been curious about how much of an impact x out of 5 scores have on the metascore, since even a .5 difference in the score can alter the overall score by 10%.  I would hope that smaller scales are weighted differently (relative to scales that score out of a 10 or 100, like IGN), but I haven't really done research on it myself.

3.5/5 *100

The problem with that though is the scores don't neccesarily gel together.... Admitedly most (probably like 2/3rds) of reviewers use a stupidly over 'accurate' score out of 100, whether that be literally a percentage or out of 10 but to 1.d.p. makes no difference. As foolish as I think that was of scoring is, something lke Metacritic would be ok if all the reviews used the same scale and metacritic didn't mess with the average in any way. It would just be an average score and while it wouldn't mean a great deal, it could be an indicator of a games quality just due to "wisdom of crowds" effect.

As it is though, many of the reviews included in Metacritic use different scales, and some may use similar scales but have a totally different interpretation of what they mean (though it's rare to find a game reviewer who gives average games a central score in their scale anymore). Metacritic tries to "correct" this using heuristics but it's just trying to find a solution to a problem that shouldn't exist, and they also weight reviews even if they use the same scale anyway.

3.5/5 * 100 = 350/500

it is

3.5/50 * 20 = 70/100

I have no idea what you are doing.