The difference among 95, 96, 97 or 98% on Meta nowdays means nothing as we got the usual "troll/clickbait" reviews for any game; it depends how many troll reviews that specific game receives. It's enough a couple of clickbait crap reviews to lower the score, and these biased and unprofessional magazines always wait the last minute to see how much they should give the Game to lower the score; these people should be banned when this is obvious. Too easy to call their crap ""opinions"", when 95% of reviewers give the game a 9 or 9.5, or 10, and they give a 3/10 or a 4/10, with inconsistent and inconclusive motivations.
So we will ever see another 98% on Meta ? Does it really matter ? ↑ ↑ ↑
Furthermore, there are many other reviewers that might be slighty biased in the other way, giving perfect scores because they are somehow "loyal/biased" to that particular genre/developer. So how to come out from this? Some statistics remove 5-10% of scores from the Top reviews and 5-10% from the bottom for the calculation of the average. That's not my method, but it's like many other statistics on other subjects work, to be more reliable(score). Can it work on Metacritic ? I don't know, maybe this would sound "not diplomatic". My two cents.
I agree with this.
After things score above 90%+, I honestly dont care.
Does it matter if its 94? or 97?
GoW was amasing, and RDR2 is overrated imo.
I love jrpgs even ones that reviewers would give like 70's....
Honestly dont give too f***s about what reviewers/clickbaits/fanboyism determines is higher rated, by a few %.
Necro-bump this 2020: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=229249
Bumb in 2021: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9047071