I've been seeing this "discussion" (which is to say mud slinging lol) in many, many threads, obviously prompted by an (apparent) 98 finish for the latest Zelda and a thread asking why Sony hasn't topped 97 yet. Obviously, this lead to two camps immediately attacking one another while, I assume, PC and Xbox fanboys chomped down a ton of popcorn. It really got me thinking, though, as obviously Sony has had a ton of fantastic games, and so I thought I'd just look into the matter and share an objective-as-I'm-possibly-capable-of (the only emotion I was feeling during this was curiosity) analysis of what is required to reach those metacritic heights. For reference, here's the list: http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/all/all/filtered?sort=desc
Older Games Had Less Reviews:
I felt I should open with this one as it's something I became aware of long ago when researching previous threads. The simple fact is that, up until the mid-2000's, all reviews on Metacritic consist of comparatively few scores. While one cannot know where games of the past would score had the present, internet fueled review environment of today been around in their time, it is very, very possible that their scores benefited from a smaller pool of reviewers.
As anyone who collects data will tell you, the more data you have, the better, as an increasingly accurate mean is found, and a true bellcurve is established. With just a handful of reviews statistical extremes may result that would not reflect the result had a great many more people been polled. If you're only going to ask a few people of their opinions and they grade on varying scales, like 1-5 or 1-10, you really only need please said handful of people to score almost perfectly. This works both ways, of course, as in giving so much influence to each individual opinion a single person could sink the score of an otherwise loved game.
Basically, then, the older scores with far fewer reviews may benefit from a far smaller pool of reviewers as, unlike today, a game reviewed in 1999 is not going to have some random man in a distant Italian village shrug his shoulders, type "It'sa 'meh', mediocre", and drag the average down. This does not mean that old scores lack accuracy, but rather that their accuracy is less reliable, which is to say that Breath of the Wild's current 98 is far more impressive to me than Ocarina's 99.
Established Franchises or Developers (aka HYPE):
One thing you'll notice when looking at the list of those games in the 96+ range is that you really don't see any surprises with maybe one or two exceptions that I'll get to later. Generally, these games had already gotten everyone's attention by either releasing great previous installments which is seen in that they're mostly sequels (Mario Galaxy 1 & 2, Zelda OoT, GTA III & V, Uncharted 2, Tony Hawk 2, Metroid Prime, Elder Scrolls V, Resident Evil 4, and a few more), or they were developed by a trusted and well known team (Rare's Goldeneye and Perfect Dark, 2k Game's Bioshock).
For the most part, you won't find many games that seem to appear out of the aether, the exceptions being covered by the next commonality.
Revolutionary Experience/Gameplay:
This one may seem obvious, but it is clearly one of the key reasons why two games of equal quality might see one rise to the top of the metacritic charts while the other does not: innovation matters. When looking through the games near the top of the charts, it is clear that a huge factor involved those high 90's scores is providing an experience that has not been experienced before.
Zelda in a 3D environment, Mario flying through space with incredible platforming physics, GTA III abandoning the top down view and putting you on the ground in a living and breathing city, Goldeneye showing that console shooters can be fun and newcomer Halo borrowing the controls from Alien Resurrection and really establishing the modern console shooter (though I seem to remember first experiencing that with Quake III on the Dreamcast); if you can provide a game that really surprises the player with things they'd not seen before, you're well on your way to a high score.
Reinventing What Already Worked and Adapting for Modern Tastes:
Looking at many of the games on that list, it seems they may have been rewarded for venturing outside of their established formula in an effort to keep with the times. There's Ocarina going 3D, GTA abandoning the top-down approach, Metroid becoming a FPS, Mario being sent out into space on tiny planets to provide a unique platforming experience, Batman Arkham City taking Batman outside of the asylum, and the current Zelda completely reinventing itself to be a true open world experience as had been the original goal.
Demonstrating adaptability seems to get everyone justifiably excited by showing that your franchise can keep with the times, and this a common trait among most of those top rated games.
Creating a Genre All Your Own or Dominating the One You're In:
This is one that most clearly benefits the most famous franchises of the upper 90's, as well as the few unusual standouts. With Mario, they pioneered both the 2D and 3D platforming genre, and to this day so dominate the genre with consistently excellent releases that there's never any real superior alternatives to negatively compare them with. Zelda, too, has in some ways been a genre unto itself. There's certainly similar games, but there's a reason people have such a hard time defining Zelda games (it's an rpg!... but not really, eh, w.e), and whenever something similar comes out (think back to Neutopia II, Golvellius, Golden Axe Warrior etc) they're called "Zelda clones" or "Zelda-esque" as Zelda has almost become a genre unto itself in our minds. Finally, Rockstar's GTA is another difficult-to-define unique experience, and at this point while there are others who attempt something similar (such as Saints Row), no one has the resources to outdo GTA in its own genre.
Basically, they're all every bit as good as reviews often say they are, but their advantage is that by literally pioneering and defining their genres there's almost never any similar experiences to be found that are superior to their own offerings.
A Focus On Gameplay over Cinematics:
This one may seem obvious, but it's actually rather important. What you'll find when looking at the top games is that they did, indeed, focus entirely on the gameplay itself, and while often including campaigns and the like, they're generally either optional or not where you'll spend the majority of your time playing. You won't find many games that are loaded with cutscenes or quicktime events, and I believe this is because there will always be a certain portion of the reviewers who just don't have an interest in or patience for games of that style. This can be the difference between a 95 and a 90 or lower which, obviously, can be the difference between the pinnacle of the metacritic charts and being merely among the "almost perfects".
Replayability:
One thing that instantly springs to mind when looking at the list of all-time top rated games is that it is positively oozing with replability. I don't even need to list any examples as it should be immediately evident to anyone who takes a peek; those are games you never feel that you're "done" with, something that again hurts some genres a lot more than others.
It would seem to be very nearly the most important factor that goes into those stellar ratings; if the reviewer ever decides that they don't need to spend any more time with the game, it's exceptionally unlikely that it will be receiving a perfect rating.
Some Genres Easier to Find Faults, More Subjective:
This one is a bit harder to define, but it should be evident in just how few true RPG's (especially jrpgs) make their way to the apex of Metacritic. When looking at, say, a platformer or at whatever it is you categorize GTA as, so long as you provide great controls and an engaging world you've done most of the work already. Other genres, like RPG's, are far more subjective, with everyone having their preferred aesthetic, combat system, environment and so forth.
One need look no further than just how absurdly divided the Final Fantasy community is before recognizing that the odds of an RPG fully satisfying enough people to reach the upper 90's are very slim. To a lesser extent that appears to impact the scores of FPS games as well, while with more straight-forward games (Platformers, racers, fighters, w.e the heck GTA is) most people seem to be on the same page. The more concord among reviewers and fans as to what to expect, the better odds of higher reviews for great games.
Conclusions:
Basically, when looking through all of the common characteristics of those top rated games, I suddenly find the new Zelda's ~98 a lot less surprising. Truly, looking at the list above there are three franchises that seem to consistently hit just about every mark up there while avoiding the more harshly reviewed genres: Mario, Zelda, and GTA.
With the above in mind, this notion of Sony not yet having an exclusive 97+ really shouldn't surprise many... Traditionally dominating RPG's and (more recently) those cinematic experiences found in games like the Last of Us and Uncharted, there's a number of trends they'd need to overcome to reach those near perfect scores, as there will always be some reviewer who has different RPG preferences or that guy who prefers openended gameplay and exploration to cinematics and quicktimes. These people might not hold it against the score too much, but do recall that even a stellar 95 drags down the average if the goal is 97+. Uncharted 2's 96, then, is incredibly impressive to me.
In the end, the only difference between a 95 and a 97 is, obviously, 2 points on metacritic; otherwise, they're both masterpieces. Having gleaned what I have from this little investigation, do I think Sony will top 97? I imagine eventually, though such an absurd score cannot be safely predicted. Really, if there's one game that seems to check the most boxes up top that Sony has in the works right now, being an established franchise, attempting to reinvent itself, having plenty of hype, generally being rather replayable, largely being a unique experience that owns whatever "genre" you'd like to ascribe it to, and actually combining its gameplay with the cinematics themselves, then I'd have to say God of War IV is the next best shot Sony has.
Of course, should it hit 97 I'm sure within an hour we'll see a "Will Sony Ever Have a 98?" thread so this is all an admittedly silly exercise, but it's fun speculation nonetheless. Whether a game is a 92 or a 99, chance are you're going to love it. :)
