By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - MetaCritic and GameRankings grade system ratings

brute on 02 August 2008

Now ive noticed that GR(gamerankings) and MC(medacritic) have different scores for the sites that use grade sytems,for example:1UP has given SoulCalibur4 an A,now at metactritic its counted as 100% but on GameRankings its counted as 95%(which i think in this case GameRankings is correct) cause 1UP goes up to A+.Now the second thing is GameRevolution,it gave(lets use SMG on this)an A and on MetaCritic it is once again 100%,but on GameRankings its 95% which in this case MetaCritic is correct since GameRevolution goes up to A.

why is this a difference in them,is this a thing that is proving the broken review system(i think in some cases it is broken)



tag:"reviews only matter for the real hardcore gamer"

Around the Network
skeezer on 02 August 2008

Nice find.



^_^

SaviorX on 02 August 2008

Hmm...interesting.The descrepincies do make a difference



Leatherhat on July 6th, 2012 3pm. Vita sales:"3 mil for COD 2 mil for AC. Maybe more. "  thehusbo on July 6th, 2012 5pm. Vita sales:"5 mil for COD 2.2 mil for AC."

O-D-C on 02 August 2008

hmm interesting I guess they both have issues with their scoring methods.



pichu_pichu on 02 August 2008

that is very odd...



Around the Network
megaman79 on 02 August 2008

thats why GTA4 is rated so high then? It cant be better than SMG



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.

outlawauron on 02 August 2008

MetaCritic also weighes different reviews. "more credible" reviews (big sites/mags) count more toward the overall score than "less credible" ones (smaller ones).



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

megaman79 on 02 August 2008
outlawauron said:
MetaCritic also weighes different reviews. "more credible" reviews (big sites/mags) count more toward the overall score than "less credible" ones (smaller ones).

 

thats kind of elitist



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.

ZenfoldorVGI on 02 August 2008

I noticed that when I was really checking out SCIV reviews for a few days. No clue as to why.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

Auron on 02 August 2008

This is one of the many reasons reviews suck major balls and are irrelevant to the actual quality of a game.