Topic: Gamekult review problem

Yes, I absolutely agree with this. Metacritic is a useful tool for gamers, but unfortunately it's status as 'industry standard' has become increasingly problematic. They need to take more responsibility. I complain about the way Gamekult chooses to review games, but they are entirely within their right to do so. Metacritic's the party that needs to wake up.

Quotation forthcoming.

What I find interesting is how Gamekult is the problem for (apparently) actually using the full rating scale, where other sites that never give out scores under 6 or 7 are considered acceptable.

However, the OP has a point. Metacritic ratings do matter. The affect how the public view certain games, how product sells, and they can even affect how developers get paid. Personally I don't think that ratings should matter the way they do - but that's the way things work.

What are everyone's thoughts on the Uncharted reviews? Its gotten a 8 which has been casuing a lot of Fuss and IGn gave it a 10. (I have a huge Problem with that.)

They are both perfectly valid opinions. Even the AV Club review has merit. I don't agree with it, but I respect its author's right to express his opinion, even if I feel that some of his arguments are poorly justified.

For the sites that actually do not give scores below 6, then obviously that too is as much a problem as never doling out 10s. But I think one of the things that a lot of people fail to notice is that it's typically in an outlet's best interest to focus on reviewing games that are genuinely good, or those that they expect to receive high scores. Those are the games that generate traffic, after all. Some sites like IGN review almost everything, and so if you actually look at their Metacritic stats, they do in fact give out plenty of low scores. It's just nobody reads those reviews.

It's a rare occurrence when a game that is expected to be great seriously underperforms and is given a low score as a result. Those are the only low-scoring games that are noticed by the public. Hence the origin of the popular misconception that review scores are always inflated. Most sites do not state that 5/10 is an "average score" but rather just a middling game experience. The scores are given based on actual quality, not some arbitrary standard whereby half the games reviewed should be above 5, while half below. And again, like I said, oftentimes these would-be low-scoring games are simply not reviewed, because who cares?

Gamecentral here in the UK is known for its scoring system, that generally gives lower scores than the metacritic average. They have a scale where they call an average game 5/10 rather than the tendency of other sites to give an average game a 7/10. This does have an effect of skewing metacritic scores, but the readers of the site know that a 7 or an 8 is a good score. Maybe GameKult is the same.

Gamekult has awarded Skyrim and Skyward Sword: both got the expected 8/10.

It's difficult for metacritic, we really respect what they do, they can't please everyone.

That said, it might be a nice feature if they gave you the ability to ignore certain publications from scores so you get a personalised score based on the critics you trust. I'm sure it's in the works!

I feel like this guide to controversial game reviews is important;