Jettisoned? Like, INTO SPACE?

Like that...but not exactly...look up, "metaphor" ; >

No thanks, I like my imagination.

Not much imagination without the capacity to grasp metaphor. Have fun with what ya got though! ; >

I was being sarcastic.

Me too! : > I'm just messin with ya. No hard feelings. I just can't resist the urge to use words like, "jettison" every now and then ; >

Lack of interest, took up server space. Saves them money.

So long as Gamerankings doesn't pull the same crap, I'm okay. And it's unlikely they will, since games is ALL they do. Metacritic has all that other data for movies and whatnot piling up, making older game data seem relatively unnecessary to them, apparently. There's still something to be said for specialization, yknow.

Server space is a finite (and expensive) resource, and they have a lot of data to file.

Holy crap, that sucks. Oh well... at least I don't care too much for Metacritic.

dang, that means i cant laugh at the terribly low scores for the N-GAGE anymore...

Awww man! Now I won't be able to prove to anyone that Ocarina of Time is the highest rated video game in history (anyone that doesn't know, that is)....

Metascores never worked anyway. From a subjective standpoint, a 5-star rating system shouldn't be included in an average on a scale of 100. 5/5 is usually reserved for those games nearing perfection, so 4/5 is the go-to score for great games. That means most games will get a score of 80/100 from them - even if the review text indicates it's good enough to be a 90. This means a lot of excellent games get their metascore dragged down by lower scores thanks to less resolution in scoring on some sites.

Metacritic could only work if all the reviews they aggregated had the same scoring scale and system. I know some sites try to keep their average score at around 75/100, while others keep theirs at 50/100. At best you could just use a metascore as a very, very rough idea of how good reviewers think a game is.

I've noticed user scores are almost always more accurate than the metascore anyway.

I've noticed that the metascore is pretty accurate even with metacritics shortcomings. User score can't be accurate since anyone can go there and throw a bunch of zeros or tens to any game with no proper justication. There are games like Pimp My Ride with metascore 26 and user score 7.5, or Ford Racing: Off road with metascore 37 and user score 10 (which means 100 in user score scale, of course!). I hope that no one has bought these apparently awful games based on user score. It also works other way around: Assasins Creed 2 on PC has metascore of 86 and user score 2.9!

You can always refer to Game Rankings

Good points HolyMackerel and Faron, and well stated! I've often found the averages (both critic and user) to be inaccurate to varying degrees; either unfairly low for some games and unfairly high for others (I'm thinking Madworld here...ugh!). Still, you get an average (take of it what you will) and, like you said HolyMackerel, you can always compare this to the user reviews and also read the individual reviews for more detail. Overall, I find it very useful to have all this in one place.

@Faron: Very true with the Assassin's Creed 2 score...doubtlessly given because of the crippling DRM. And of course, the biggest exclusive titles for PS3 and 360 tend to get user score wars from console fanboys.

hey guys, they said that theyre gonna be putting up review for older platforms later. they have this thing on the games section that says:
legacy platforms

___________________

PS2 | Gamecube

___________________

PS1 | Gameboy Advance

___________________

Xbox | N-Gage

___________________

N64 | Dreamcast

___________________

_{grey platforms will be available at a later date}

/me protests!
HOW COULD YOU METACRITIC, IVE LOST ALL MY FAITH IN YOU!!!!
gamrankings it is now.

oh, and punnyguy, if you go oon gamrankings you can