And yet Sony and RAD did nothing to change their minds after those weak early gameplay demos. People kept spouting off about it being just a small part of the game. Turned out not much changed.

50-60 I can understand, even the 40s I can somewhat understand, but a 20? Oh boy...

Hey, don't tempt me so much to find a gif of monkeys flinging shit at each other.

So I shouldn't speak about a game I haven't played? Why? 
You want me to buy games like Sonic Boom as well just so I can say my opinion about it?

Reviews tell you a lot about games too. Whether or not you like that is up to you.

And considering the types of games you've played so far this year, this might be the best thing you've booted up all year 

When you've been gaming for years and you know what you like out of a game, it's not necessarily true that you HAVE to play the game. If you know that QTE's, issues in plot, and types of gameplay annoy you, or you don't prefer it, you can use that second hand experience for similiar games. And while the game may not turn out  a little better, it will mostly likely not undermine your original assumption. 

Just curious here, what games might those be? I've certainly enjoyed some games with a poor meta, but never anything THAT low

Might be, lol

Damn.. you are going to be so salty when I pass you in GS; just can't let this one go can ya  

20 is near complete flamebait.. Like for real, to give something that low a score it has to be completely next to broken. Recenty I can remember Quarter to Three giving Forza Horizon 2 a 1/5  

Angelus said: thismeintiel said: This helps illustrate the problem with Metacritic, and not just that people put too much importance on it. The biggest one being that Metacritic still allows attention grabbing troll reviews to affect the average. The Order should never get a 20 from ANY publication that sees itself as credible. 10s and 20s are reserved for games that are almost unplayable because of glitches and poor controls, while also having below average graphics and gameplay. Really, a game that is pretty much bug free, with average graphics and control should be enough to get you into the 40s and 50s, if the reviewer is being objective. From there, you start adding extra points for better than average graphics, control, gameplay, and story. If you take off the ridiculous below average scores, this game would have a 70, which without playing it, is probably what I would give it. When I do play it, however, and I really like the story and characters, it would probably move up to an 8 or so. Regardless, I'm not too worried, cause from what I have been seeing and hearing, this game is still going to do really well. Which I'm sure will tick off those reviewers who decided they didn't like this game from the start. Not if you also take off the ridiculous above average scores

Lol, those aren't ridiculous.  If those reviewers thought it was that good of a game, then they are more than welcome to give it that.  However, one cannot objectively give it a below average, especially a 20, while talking about how well the game performs technically and visually, without losing credibility.  If you think it's just an average game with great visuals, then fine, rate it that way.  But to rate it so low, either to try and make a point or just for the clicks, is the reason why people are slowly turning away from gaming sites.