That's nonsense. Sure, there will always be some sites or people that allow ad deals and the like to influence their opinions, but that's the beauty of a score weighted from up to 100 reviewers. It's incredibly difficult to manipulate. It's not perfect, and people make the mistake of assuming all games can be linearly compared by their scores, but it does its job pretty well.

I'm not saying it never happens, but if it does it would have to be done subtly. Too subtly to make any major difference to a consoles overall library that's for sure. It's much cheaper for Sony, MS and Nintendo along with every other major publisher to simply make good games rather than facing the mother of all PR shitstorms that would be generated from being caught red handed buying scores.

Perhaps the biggest proof of all that it isn't an industry wide issue is how many major titles have recently gotten shit on.

If Sony or MS were actively engaged in it you'd think at least 1 of their launch titles would have met score expectations. Instead we had a single title that hit 80 (down from the 90s of every other entry) and even some titles hitting the 50s and 60s.

Then we have EA, perhaps the most hated western publisher there is right now. If they're involved in this mass conspiracy then they're doing a pretty bad job of it. Dead Space 3, The Sims 4, SimCity, NHL etc, all received mediocre receptions. Even TF, hyped to be one of the biggest titles of the year, only managed an 86 (83 on the 360).

Let's not forget Call of Duty, one of the biggest series on the planet. All of Activison's money and marketing power apparently couldn't stop it getting a low 70s on the PS3 and 360, and even a 60s score on the PC. The PS4 and X1 versions didn't hold up much better either.

Again, i'm not saying it never happens, maybe there are a handful of titles that do buy themselves a few points on meta, but implying that there is a conspiracy so large that it could drastically influence the overall quality of a library built over several years is frankly ridiculous.

Gaming journalism is in many respects a joke these days, but only a few idiots would risk outright selling scores. Reviews are the bread and butter of many of these sites, everything else is just gravy. If a site loses its credibility as a reviewer (outside of stupid internet memes and gifs), they're pretty much dead.

That's nonsense. Sure, there will always be some sites or people that allow ad deals and the like to influence their opinions, but that's the beauty of a score weighted from up to 100 reviewers. It's incredibly difficult to manipulate. It's not perfect, and people make the mistake of assuming all games can be linearly compared by their scores, but it does its job pretty well.

I'm not saying it never happens, but if it does it would have to be done subtly. Too subtly to make any major difference to a consoles overall library that's for sure. It's much cheaper for Sony, MS and Nintendo along with every other major publisher to simply make good games rather than facing the mother of all PR shitstorms that would be generated from being caught red handed buying scores.

Perhaps the biggest proof of all that it isn't an industry wide issue is how many major titles have recently gotten shit on.

If Sony or MS were actively engaged in it you'd think at least 1 of their launch titles would have met score expectations. Instead we had a single title that hit 80 (down from the 90s of every other entry) and even some titles hitting the 50s and 60s.

Then we have EA, perhaps the most hated western publisher there is right now. If they're involved in this mass conspiracy then they're doing a pretty bad job of it. Dead Space 3, The Sims 4, SimCity, NHL etc, all received mediocre receptions. Even TF, hyped to be one of the biggest titles of the year, only managed an 86 (83 on the 360).

Let's not forget Call of Duty, one of the biggest series on the planet. All of Activison's money and marketing power apparently couldn't stop it getting a low 70s on the PS3 and 360, and even a 60s score on the PC. The PS4 and X1 versions didn't hold up much better either.

Again, i'm not saying it never happens, maybe there are a handful of titles that do buy themselves a few points on meta, but implying that there is a conspiracy so large that it could drastically influence the overall quality of a library built over several years is frankly ridiculous.

Gaming journalism is in many respects a joke these days, but only a few idiots would risk outright selling scores. Reviews are the bread and butter of many of these sites, everything else is just gravy. If a site loses its credibility as a reviewer (outside of stupid internet memes and gifs), they're pretty much dead.

Makes sense, I guess the really really bad games are very obvious, but I do think a lot of gems get beated by the crowd mentality or something worst, like THE FIGHT: LIGHTS OUT, which is much better than the average metacritic say it is or any Call of Duty, which is much worst.

But I stand corrected then. In that case, I will change my answer: the PS4 will have the highest ratings.

They don´t sell reviews, they trade them for sex. 

Just kidding, you are right. Great answer by the way, I stand corrected and bow to your arguments.

In that case, PS4.

I definitely agree with you in that respect. I don't think it's an issue relating to corruption and the like, but rather that most "gaming journalists" are really just normal gamers. Like most gamers they tend to look more favorable on series they know they enjoy or titles they're particularly hyped for, and can likewise be overly critical on others.

It's also worth remembering that the best thing about Metacritic (its weighted averaging of lots of reviews) is also the worst. If a game is great to a niche market, but seen as bad by the mainstream, it's doomed to get a bad score. Weighted averages aren't kind on products aimed at specific market groups.

Still, this thread is just for fun ^^ Metacritic isn't perfect, but it's the most subjective method of comparing libraries. Like i said in the OT though, which library is best to an individual person will depend on their own preferences and experiences. You aren't going to change their mind with numbers.

Let me tell you a story. Last week I was contemplating the idea of buying Wii Sports Resort to justify my angst driven purchase of 2 wiimotes plus and a nunchuk for my WiiU.

So I visited Metacritic and read some reviews about it, check the score and stuff, read the best and worst rscores reviews and made my decision: Buy it.

2 days ago the game arrived: I loved it, thought it was even more charming and adorable than the best reviews said it was.

So, yes, Metacritic is pretty useful sometimes. But some gems don´t have a chance for some reason.