How would you decide which to toss, though? I mean, at what point do you determine the "average", in order to throw out reviews that are way above or way below it? Polygon has become more unbiased as time has passed, but there was a time when it seemed like they legitimately lowered scores on Playstation exclusives or Playstation promoted games (ex. TLOU got a 7.5, Ni No Kuni got a 6.5, etc). What if those kinds of reviews came in first, making the game have a "low score", then higher rated reviews from more objective reviewers came out. Would they get tossed because they were "20 points outside of the mean"? Something like what you'e suggesting is completely arbitrary.

But I see what you're getting at. It's precisely why Eurogamer dropped review numbers and Kotaku has a Yes/No/Not Yet system for if you should play a game or not.

Gaming trends review is actually one the better written reviews and definitely not clickbait. People just aren't use seeing the 10 scale actually being utilised. If the game mostly falls short as the review implies, a 4.5/10 sounds fair. You shouldn't automatically get a 7 simply for being a functional game with some redeeming qualities in amongst a ton of bad ones.

that part is easy. They would still have the score in the total database but not displayed. If more low scores came in the mean would move towards that score and it would fall within range, and other higher scores would then be bumped out.

Basically there would be 2 scores

Total score- what we currently see, but would be hidden to us in a new system

New Metascore- The score without factoring in the outlyers. What we would see and would be the official score.

Its basically a mean of the mean. If I were doing it I would have an equation IE Standard deviation X2 or something. So that if all the score are very tight the number may be only within 10. For instance take the last of us out of 69 reviews only 8 gave it less than a 90 and only one less than an 80. I would be willing to bet a SD X2 formula would be around 8-10. So essestially only scores 85 and up could be counted. Now think of that instance, does anyone in their right mind think a score for that game under an 85 is reasonable, when you have 85% of all reviews giving it a 90+... hell no.  Even if the reviewer was being honest it just means he is wrong and he is in the vast minority who does not consider the game a masterpiece.  A game like the order would have a larger range most likely close to 25 which basically would mean all scores between 40 and 90 would be counted.

I was playing Silent Hill HD on my 360 the other day and felt comfortable with those wonky graphics, so I get you, Tiago!

What about the fact that some reviews use an "actual" scale instead of the "grading scale". As in, a 50/100 is average (since it's right in the middle) instead of 75/100 being average. Do those scores get tossed when a 6/10 is slightly above average instead a 7.8/10 being slightly above average in many places?

I guess what caused the lower scores is the long waiting of this game. If it was released as a PSP game back in 2011 it'll get a better scores.

My good sire, you should not include the score in the title. That way people wont enter the thread and just look at the title from the Vgchartz Buddy.

It even gives off that nostalgic feeling that games nowadays lack. 

In such mechanized industry, where you are either indie(Woot they are saving the industry) or AAA (that resolution, Dat resolution!) it seems, these "type 0's" are a breath of fresh air.

Good stuff, looking forward to my copy soon.

But this is an HD port of a FF game.