Another simple question from me. I don't think any method is perfect but for me, this is what I tend to do: I would consider any game that gets 70 - 100 worth purchasing (you might have a different standard), so I check to see how many scores are above 70 and how many scores are below 70. If there are more above 70 I'll then read the review from the highest score and the lowest score. I might read two or three depending on what the split is. If it's 70% - 80% above 70, I'll read the lowest and the highest but if the split is 50% - 60% I'll read two or three low and high reviews.

For me, I use Metacritic to help me decide what not to buy, rather than what to buy, which I think is kind of unfortunate and backwards, but it's how I use it.

Looking into a game, I usually know before hand whether I am interested in the game or not. I am generally very interested in JRPGs, whereas I have absolutely no interest in first-person shooters or hack n' slash games. Then, if the game score highly enough (the score needed for me to buy a game usually fluctuates based on the cost of the game, but I will say that I am generally very picky), I will be more inclined to buy the game. Naturally, the higher the score, the more inclined I am to buy the game.

Again, I do wish I used Metacritic in a different way. I feel like there's too much of an emphasis on scoring games harshly so that they can be ranked, rather than scoring games more generously so that people can broaden their horizons and play more types of games in the genres they enjoy.

I understand that the last two paragraphs are kind of contradictory, so allow me to explain myself. When Bayonetta and God of War get scores in the 90s, that's fantastic, because even though I don't like either of those games because I don't enjoy the genre, people that do enjoy the genre should know that those games are great. On the other hand, take the Dangan Ronpa games. While their Metacritic scores are respectable, they're not fantastic. Sure, you could make the argument that the gameplay is weak, but are there really any games that do what it does close to as well that particular game does? Here, I feel like Metacritic is ranking the game compared to other games arbitrarily, rather than encouraging you to buy games that are only really appreciated by its ardent fan base.

But let's all face it: the only real purpose of Metacritic is to compare arbitrary numbers so that our platform of choice looks better when we defend it on internet forums.

I don't use metacritics, because i found most of the reviews bad.

The only good site for me is Gamekult.fr, and even them are not perfect.

I never base my purchases off metacritic since I'm guilty of buying games that score in the 50s and hell even in the 40s so for the most part the aggregate of the reviewers are not representative of my preferences ...

I use it to help me buy my games provided I have some interest in it of course. I am not gonna buy like flower growing simulator even if it has a 90+ score

80-100 = Sure, I will buy it
70-79 = Meh, Maybe
60-69 = If its anime, might be an exception

Anything below, Nope

I use it as definitive proof that Nintendo is the best publisher of all time

If a game looks fun you try it.

I use it as a general indicator of a games quality.

If I used Metacritic I wouldn't have bought and played several games that I actually liked, including the Order, and to a lesser extent Knack. Though I did wait until Knack was particularly cheap.

I think the main way I use Metacritic is to see how well it meets my expectations for how a game will review. I expected somewhat harsh treatment of The Order and it pretty much got it. It got mixed reviews and mixed word of mouth. Most critics who gave the game middling scores (6-7.5) had nice things to say about it other than just pretty graphics, and they wanted a sequel, for the most part.

I kind of had low expectations for Shadow of Mordor. But the game reviewed a lot better than I thought. But also word of mouth was very good.

I tend not to read any old reviews. I target reviewers who I think are trustworthy. For all the shit some people like to give Jim Sterling I trust him to call it how he sees it, and if I don't agree with him I still value the independence of his opinion. He appears to me to love games but hate the games industry, which is kind of the best sort of perspective for a critic because that sort of person isn't going to try to suck up to anyone.

Zero punctuation I like as well, and Yahtzee isn't on metacritic.

I think mostly I go on the opinions of non-reviewer gamers.