I'll prefice this by saying I don't really care for The Conduit and I don't really care what Gamepro has to say on the game because it's not going to affect my purchasing habits, but the reality is that it does serve this purpose for some people.

People are quick to jump up and down about Metacritic when trying to argue the strengths of a particular systems library but then turn around and say we shouldn't get worked up about a single review. We can not attach any credibility whatsoever to a Metacritic score unless we are critical of the components that make up a Metacritic score, the individual reviews. Reviews are by their very nature subjective but the purpose of reviewing games/movies etc is to attempt to provide as an impartial assessment as possible.

In science a meta-analysis is a way of looking at the body of evidence regarding a particular topic and then arrive at an overall conclusion regarding the evidence by looking at all studies (reviews) that address a particular question. THE KEY POINT OF A META-ANALYSIS IS THAT A BODY OF EXPERTS SYSTEMATICALLY EVALUATE EACH STUDY FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE META-ANALYSIS FOR QUALITY, IMPARTIALITY ETC AND ANY STUDIES THAT DO NOT MEET CERTAIN PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS ARE NOT INCLUDED. If Metacritic is not willing to take some comparable steps then they should just abandon their scheme of applying an overall score and change their name to reviews.com or reviewsreviewsreviews because at the moment there is nothing Meta or critical about the way they assign overall scores.

I realise this became more of a rant about Metacritic than Gamepro but i think both topics are intimately linked as a good deal of people use Metacritic as a portal to access reviews like Gamepros that they might otherwise not see.

There are plenty of crappy reviewers who are on my "ignore" list: GameSpot, Edge, Variety, Teletext Gamecentral, Gamestyle...actually about half the sites that Metacritic uses.

I am indifferent towards GamePro, though I'll admit that is one of the worst reviews I have ever seen. Its fail level is up there with GameSpot's Tools of Destruction review, if not higher. But, one strike is okay. The best of reviewers trip up sometimes (Resistance 2 9.5? Seriously?).

It's not even the lowest score on Metacritic. It might be, though, if they had a letter to number system that actually came close to making sense.

I don't see why anyone reads reviews like this. I only trust reviews from my friends who know me well enough to know if I will like a game or not. Other than that, I watch videos and play demos. No magazine is going to make me buy a game just because it has high scores. Look at Lair for instance. Most people still agree it is bad. I absolutely loved that game and I gaurentee if it launched with analog support instead of six axis, so would many others.

Well I believe the problem stems that we have five platforms of differing quality in graphics, and each is supposed to be judged on it's own merits. If we were to review a DS or PSP game, do we knock off points because the games do not look like 360/PS3 games, or do we judge them based on other games on the same platform? I would do the latter. Your argument points to you doing the former.

The reason the PS3 gets knocked for it's difficult to program for structure is because it shares 90% of it's games with the 360. If it didn't, it wouldn't be such a big deal.

You're comparing a hypothetical multiplatform 360/PS3 effort with an exclusive Wii title. There is the difference.

@Zen-I'm fairly sure reviewers didn't play Smash Bros. online actually. That's how it got such good reviews.

So I'm just wondering, are we going to see every single review of this game that lists it as mediocre or worse? If you don't like the review, then buy the game and truly show them that you don't care. Put egg on their face and make the game a 1 million + affair. The fact that your going on VGCHARTZ looking for vindication is silly at best.

I gritted my teeth through pretty much any review of a Diablo esque game that isn't Diablo, but I don't go on here claiming that every site reviewer needs to be fired on the spot.

It is extremely rare too see a high rated shooter with poor graphics. For shooter fans (in general), graphics are very important, and seem to play a greater role in creating immersion than in other genres.

This reviewer took it too far, but too my mind he has a point. From the outset when Nintendo created the Wii with the specifications they did, they were choosing to ignore much of the shooter market.

Yeah, it's not about the numerical score at all. It is the context and inflection of the review, and how it focuses on the Wii, and not the game.

Yes, but that was not the right place to make that argument.

It has absolutely nothing to do with this game. It is the review, not that game. The review is based around the console, not the game, and the reviewer didn't even play the actual game. The review, not the numerical score, or the game.

Also, I'm not looking for vindication. The reviewer should be fired because he didn't play a game he reviewed, and also, because he didn't review the game he reviewed, he reviewed the Wii instead, yet still managed to put his two cents in about the game with an arbitrary numerical score that he pulled out of a hat.

Read my OP. Really read it, don't just glance, assume you understand, and post...and you'll absolutely agree with me.