What I was trying to say in the article is that ultimately a score without any context is meaningless. My 9 out of 10 is not your 9 out of 10. For example I like my hot sauce spicy as all creation, so my favorite hot sauce is not going to be enjoyed by everyone. Does that mean my opinion is meaningless? No, instead it means you have to understand why I enjoyed hot sauce A over hot sauce B. Metacritic ignores the why.

1) Review scores are trying to quantify an unquantifiable experience and

2) A review should just be an insightful analysis of the subject matter and not a score

Which things he likes doesn’t really affect the points brought out in the article.

Either way, scores will always be around, so will those who don’t ascribe to them. I’d much rather see a system like Netflix’s scoring system: ratings based on what I’ve played and overall average ratings from all members.

It’ll happen once Netflix and Gamefly merge with OnLive

I hope 50 Cent doesn’t see what you wrote though.

I’m inclined to agree, too, with most of what you say. We, as core gamers, will probably not place too much trust in a Metacritic score, but it’s a decent source for the uninformed masses. If you have a look at the top of the 360 chart, you see GTA IV, Bioshock, Halo 3, CoD4, Rock Band – games I think we can all (in the most past) agree belong up there. So for those unwilling to read up a bit more on why and how the game’s successes and failures impact on your time spent with it, it’s a decent source.

However, when a publisher uses a Metacritic score to define when and how bonuses and royalties are paid, I think it can be a bit unfair. Most of the reviews used for a Metacritic score are from core gamer’s sites, so kid’s games tend to score low, as will movie and TV tie in games. However, many of these can sell extremely well, so is it fair to deny bonuses paid to the developer on a game which sold a couple of million because the Metacritic score is 50%? The people buying these games aren’t too worried about the quality as much as we are – they don’t care about going on endless fetch quests or the same mission reskinned over and over. If the game sells, the developer should get their royalties.

Also, regarding your point on low scores generating high traffic, I think with Edge in particular you may be off the mark. The reviews on Edge online come direct from the print mag, so when they’re writing that the ads are already in the magazine – they don’t need to generate extra traffic to get more hits. Also, their scale runs from 1 – 10, so a 5 is an average game – Resistance 2 received an above average score. Games TM do the same. These two are always included in Metacritic scores as they are well regarded magazines, so they will always throw the score out slightly due to the fact that most other publications and websites seem to run on a 60% – 100% scale. Edge’s score for Killzone 2 was a 7, and this caused a huge stink in many forums, with people branding their review and score (and hence their opinion of the game) as ‘wrong’. However, this is a score given to a good game – not exceptional, but good. Which I agree with when it comes to Killzone 2.

Stuff like this can make a huge difference when it comes to Metacritic, and as so much value is placed on this by publishers it can affect people’s jobs and livelihoods. Projects have been dropped due to a low Metacritic score on a previous game by that same developer, with no regard to the potential of the game in question.

So I think it’s a good site as a general guide for the public who have no other knowledge of the games they’re looking into, but publishers place too much emphasis on these scores when there can often be little correlation between a quality game and high sales (see Beyond Good & Evil, Oddworld: Stranger’s Wrath, Zak & Wiki, Psychonauts on one end, 50 Cent: Bulletproof, every FIFA before ’08 and Driv3r on the other end).