@dunno001: Once more reviews are added, the metascore will give a truer indication of the consensus. For the record, though, metascore uses a weighted average so that obscure reviewers have little impact on the actual score.

It's still flawed because some review systems (like Edge's) don't translate well to metacritic's 100-point scale. That's why X-Play got themselves taken off. 3/5 on x-play is a solid score, but metacritic translates that into a 60 which is not what they wanted to indicate. I think every publication should be able to choose their own 100-point score for metacritic averaging but that number would remain unpublished. Rotten Tomatoes allows film critics to choose whether their reviews should be considered "fresh" or "rotten" and metacritic should do something similar.

Also, to everyone who thinks a "10" should be impossible because no game is perfect: That's not what the score implies at all. If you use a 10-point scale with integers only, a "10" indicates anything above 95% and that's only if the score correlates directly to the 100-point scale which isn't necessarily the case (see above).

Galaki said: The Ghost of RubangB said: Mario is going from 1 player to 4 players.  That's a 300% increase. Modern Warfare is going from 32 players to 18 players.  That's a 43.75% decrease. +1

+ infinite 

dunno001 said: Personally, I don't care what the meta is for it. Metacritic is flawed by design. If you ask me, the best way to "fix" meta is to cut the outliers on both ends. Looking at the above (at the time of this post, there are 5 reviews), 4 of the 5 games give it at least the "average" 85, but the one low point is what drags it down. Instead, cut the outliers out, and you get a better feel for where a game should be. The 70 will be removed for being the low score, and to keep it balanced, the 96 is removed for being the high score. The remaining 3 scores create an average of 89. For games with more reviews, I'd say to cut the top 10% and the bottom 10%. It's those extreme scores that pull scores away from a more accurate thought of the reviewing public. However, it still doesn't count those that are biased toward or against something. That's something that just broke in the general review system.

I do like this idea, how many outliers should be discounted? 

hsrob said: dunno001 said: Personally, I don't care what the meta is for it. Metacritic is flawed by design. If you ask me, the best way to "fix" meta is to cut the outliers on both ends. Looking at the above (at the time of this post, there are 5 reviews), 4 of the 5 games give it at least the "average" 85, but the one low point is what drags it down. Instead, cut the outliers out, and you get a better feel for where a game should be. The 70 will be removed for being the low score, and to keep it balanced, the 96 is removed for being the high score. The remaining 3 scores create an average of 89. For games with more reviews, I'd say to cut the top 10% and the bottom 10%. It's those extreme scores that pull scores away from a more accurate thought of the reviewing public. However, it still doesn't count those that are biased toward or against something. That's something that just broke in the general review system. I do like this idea, how many outliers should be discounted?

My leaning is top and bottom 10%, which I mentioned. On a game with 50 reviews, it cuts out the top 5 and the bottom 5. I'm not sure if that's too many, but I really wouldn't raise the percentage any higher. I've toyed around in my head with it being 5%, but that doesn't feel like it's enough. I am rather adamant on it not being a fixed number irrelevant to the review count, though.

Oh, what I did forget to mention in my original post, is that if there is weighing on the "influence" of an individual reviewer, that needs to go away. If anything, it's those "highly influential" sites that are more likely to also be influenced by the moneyhat. Wasn't there an article that mentioned how many of the early MW2 scores were from places invited to a hotel by Activision, where the game was provided in their room? I think that speaks volumes, and wish there was an easy way to discount those reviews, but by doing that, it opens a whole new can of worms...

dunno001 said: hsrob said: dunno001 said: Personally, I don't care what the meta is for it. Metacritic is flawed by design. If you ask me, the best way to "fix" meta is to cut the outliers on both ends. Looking at the above (at the time of this post, there are 5 reviews), 4 of the 5 games give it at least the "average" 85, but the one low point is what drags it down. Instead, cut the outliers out, and you get a better feel for where a game should be. The 70 will be removed for being the low score, and to keep it balanced, the 96 is removed for being the high score. The remaining 3 scores create an average of 89. For games with more reviews, I'd say to cut the top 10% and the bottom 10%. It's those extreme scores that pull scores away from a more accurate thought of the reviewing public. However, it still doesn't count those that are biased toward or against something. That's something that just broke in the general review system. I do like this idea, how many outliers should be discounted?  My leaning is top and bottom 10%, which I mentioned. On a game with 50 reviews, it cuts out the top 5 and the bottom 5. I'm not sure if that's too many, but I really wouldn't raise the percentage any higher. I've toyed around in my head with it being 5%, but that doesn't feel like it's enough. I am rather adamant on it not being a fixed number irrelevant to the review count, though. Oh, what I did forget to mention in my original post, is that if there is weighing on the "influence" of an individual reviewer, that needs to go away. If anything, it's those "highly influential" sites that are more likely to also be influenced by the moneyhat. Wasn't there an article that mentioned how many of the early MW2 scores were from places invited to a hotel by Activision, where the game was provided in their room? I think that speaks volumes, and wish there was an easy way to discount those reviews, but by doing that, it opens a whole new can of worms...

Sometimes, you just can't save the patient dude.

^ i don;t get the meaning of that!!

Wii_Master said: ^ i don;t get the meaning of that!!

Metacritic's past saving. It's got flawed execution that's built on a false premise. Making it worthwhile is nigh-impossible.

Galaki said: The Ghost of RubangB said: Mario is going from 1 player to 4 players.  That's a 300% increase. Modern Warfare is going from 32 players to 18 players.  That's a 43.75% decrease. +1

And considering it's the first sidescrolling mario game on a Nintendo console since 15 years with the additional of 4 player mode, it's quite a nice appearance.

^^basically its +infinite

oh that was my 1270th post and this one being my 1271th wow i nvr knew i passed the 1000 post mark already