{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/18/2017 7:27:04 PM
3
Rather than list the scores of every game you play, the better question is what range of metacritic scores are acceptable to you. Back in Xbox 360 days, I only played games with a metacritic score of 85 or higher. Times change and and I've been disappointed by most of the games this generation and that has me distrustful of metacritic in general. Sure, The Witcher 3 and Uncharted 4 are as good as Metacritic says. But I have personally found sub 80 games like Destiny and Mass Effect: Andromeda to be more enjoyable than higher scoring games like Batman: Arkham Knight and Far Cry 4. The more I think about, the more Metacritic seems ridiculous. It pushing all games to reach a score of 80-100 when a score of 50 should be the dividing line between good games and bad games.
English
-
I couldn't honestly care less about metacritic score at all. I'd rather play and judge for myself. For instance I love Sniper Elite 3 which has a metacritic score of 67 but absolutely despise Resident Evil 7 which has an 86. Metacritic score means nothing to me.
-
I also find that Metacritic fails to be helpful between 65 and 90.
-
The problem is everyone uses different grading scales. If everyone used a 5 point scale, then yes, 50 would be a good dividing line for good/bad games. The problem with most review scales is it leaves half of it irrelevant. There's literally no difference between a 2.0 and a 5.0 on someone like IGN's scale. Both scores represent BAD games that no one should play. On the other hand, a Giantbomb score of 3/5(or even 2/5) could represent a game that is very good for some people. Metacritic is combining numbers that are being used differently to come up with an average that doesn't really represent the consensus in some cases.
