Cakeboxer
Member
I've been noticing more and more how little Metacritic appeals to me. I was going to write a short comment, but then I remembered I'm on the internet. So here's a novel instead:
- The industry's and player's strong fixation on a single number leads to many users no longer actually reading the reviews themselves. The important context, such as which audience a game is suited for, where its strengths lie, and where its weaknesses are simply gets lost in the average score.
- Originally intended as a point of orientation, the Metascore has in many cases developed into an economic control instrument. It not only influences public perception of a game, but can also have direct financial consequences for publishers and developers, and even prevent sequels.
- One of the biggest weaknesses is the lack of transparency: Metacritic does not disclose how individual reviews are weighted. Some outlets seem to have more influence on the Metascore than others—without it being clear why and to what extent. On top of that, complex reviews are simplified and pressed into a number between 0 and 100. Nuances are lost, and the conversion of star ratings or school grading systems into percentages often leads to distortions. While I can somewhat understand perfect scores in a rough 5- or 10-point system, they feel completely out of place in a 100-point system, where there should be enough room for criticism since no game is perfect.
- The choice of sources is also questionable. Time and again, you see small, sometimes unknown outlets included. For example Player2, a magazine with only about 230 Instagram followers (compared to IGN with 6 million), awarded a 100 to some games. Such "insignificant" voices can influence the score.
- There's also a lack of international diversity. Most reviews come from Western publications, while other gaming cultures are barely represented. Even in major markets like Japan, South Korea, or China, reviews in their respective languages are underrepresented on Metacritic. This creates a distorted, Western-dominated overall picture.
- Another issue is the uneven number of reviews. Blockbusters like Zelda or The Last of Us sometimes receive over 100 reviews, which makes their scores seem stable and representative. Smaller games, however, often only get a handful of reviews. In such cases, a single outlier can massively distort the overall score. So a game with ten reviews and a score of 82 doesn't carry the same weight as one that achieved the same score based on 120 reviews. Similarly, completely different productions are lumped together: a 2,000-person studio with a $400 million project ends up in the same pot as a solo developer who created a game with a €50,000 budget. It cuts both ways, since a low-budget indie game can end up ranking above a $100 million project, even if it only succeeds in gameplay while looking outdated in every other respect.
- I've also often noticed an overrating of exclusives, whether from Nintendo, PlayStation, or Xbox. These games benefit from cult status, nostalgia, and massive media attention. They usually receive more reviews, achieve more stable averages, and therefore perform better overall compared to multiplatform titles. On top of that, many reviewers naturally have a preferred console, since most grew up with one system. True objectivity is difficult in that case.
Particularly problematic in this context is that fan magazines or clearly one-sided sites are also included. Outlets like Nintendojo, Nintendo Force Magazine, Nintendo Life, PSX Brazil, MeuPlayStation, PlayStation Universe, or Pure Xbox can give especially positive scores due to their strong brand loyalty, thereby shaping the Metascore.
- The conditions under which reviews are produced are also problematic. Many reviews are written under extreme time pressure so they can go live at the embargo date. Especially with long games, this means scores are often based on an incomplete experience. Yet these early judgments permanently shape the score.
- The problem is amplified by the release-time focus. Reviews often appear in an idealized state, before bugs, technical issues, balancing problems, or even retroactively introduced monetization and microtransactions (like in GT7) become visible. Metacritic generally does not update scores, so the score remains "frozen," even if a game's quality later changes significantly. Even if the situation improves afterwards, the damage is already done, since most players make their purchasing decisions at release based on the Metascore.
