OK

Let's close this waste conversation.

This place is Mario Odyssey review thread.

Indeed. You should have talked about Mario or its reviews instead of asking me that stupid question.

Are you on drugs?

Edit - I should take the time to point out that I'm not a fan of one line replies, but if you think my simply explaination of how sites who are allowed to post on metacritic are fully aware that a yellow post right now will get them a ton more ad revenue than at 70th "green" score, it's simply a matter of finances of a site demanding it happen and the writing staff needing to come up with a way to justify the review as much as possible to avoid it being too obvious.

Still though... if you think I'm over reacting to something... yeah, it's probably best time to take a re-read of my post or ya know, don't.

Conversation is over.

I'm wondering which one of ye will actually get it, but ye have to see that this back and forth shouldn't really be on VGchartz lads.

On the topic of Mario Odyssey though... amazing to see two solid GOTY titles on the same system in the first year of its release, Just fantastic to see that Nintendo were not fooling around when they said they were going to hold off the launch until they had software to back it up, and they sure lived up to that claim.

It's an overreaction because you jump to such conclusion without having anything to base that on other than "we usually don't score those games as high as others". You understand what you want through it, and attack the integrity of that guy out of the blue for no reason.

When someone feels the need to warn you beforehand that their review is going to be so against the grain... that it needs a buffer warning about that fact. Then yeah, even the person themselves knows that the score they give it needs justification before the review is even written.

That is the definition of clickbait, when the writer is already justifying a low score based solely on the fact that they have what? a habit of scoring high profile games low scores? Yeeeee mate, that's clickbait, if it was a case of their were critical to all games across the board then that would be fair rather than the current climate of "game barely runs..... give it a 60-70% score" I think game journalists should be more critical now because as I say a rating of 60% now means... bad game, where as the pass mark should be 40% but because of the current system every mediocre game falls in around the 70% score.

But yeah like I said extra critical.... that's a good thing, the line of "on nintendo games in particular" that's where the ad revenue comes into play.

Also your line of

"As if Super Mario games should get an automatic certain [high] score by default.  "

I don't think that in the slightest, but I do think that the line of....

"our webiste is notoriously extra-critical, and often on Nintendo titles in particular"

I most certainly think no game deserves an automatic lower score because it's created by a certain company.

(Not to mention the horror of a review from someone that can't spell Website)

But fuck it, you surely see what I mean that a yellow score will generate hits because people who dislike the game will join in and comment on their site like "yeah fuck you fanboys lol" and people who enjoy the game will comment that the guy is a fat Na....... yeah... the thing that Jim Sterling was called recently, both sides of that are wrong but the real issue is the site behind the reviews that feeds on ad revenue from both sides of this.

Where as the next green review goes up... says the game is good and gets ignored.

Top 5 Games on Game Rankings right now.

1. Super Mario Odyssey - 98.79%
2. Super Mario Galaxy - 97.64%
3. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - 97.54%
4. Super Mario Galaxy 2 - 97.35%
5. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild - 97.28%

Damn Nintendo, that is impressive.

I think breath of the wild is massively underated.  Should be in the top 3 reviewed games of all time in my opinion. Suffering from reviewer bias against nintendo.

It has a lot of merit the way you manage to be always in the wrong side