Game of the year metacritic fails...???

[alko]

I cannot understand how metacritic decide on game of the year...

looking at zelda ss i found something strange ...

there was a review made on jan 9 2012 (just before they claim game of the year) with vote 60 ....yes...only 60/100 for zelda ss...

i think it's a little strange...

so i wrote them to know their version...

they answered me:

We add reviews up to six months after a game is released. GameCritics is hardly a fanboy - but I don't blame you for not knowing that.

that's a bit strange...it' seems a very defensive answer...

how is possible to nominate a "game of the year" if the reviews are counted also on the 2012???
how is possible not to be a fanboy giving 60/100 to zelda ss...
maybe not a "fanboy" but for sure gamecritics is lead by ignorants!!!!!

it's a bit strange...it's like they want to force the game of the year to skyrim (a game full of unresolved bugs)...

for sure after this metacritic for me counts ZERO...

[gtt]

metacritic has become kind of a joke to me. not just for stuff like this, but really, the whole system of numbered review scores is kind of a joke anymore.

[thresholdXCI]

Trouble with Metacritic is that the whole idea of averaging review scores for games is pointless. Every reviewer has their own weighting to scores; a different idea of what each number actually means. So any average score is meaningless. That's why it's ridiculous to assume a game with a Metacritic of 95 is better than one with 90 or something, which is a mentality that site encourages.

Sure it's interesting to see the scores it has for games, but it's really not very credible. I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

[bushidogamer]

Yeah. Lethal weapon is the only script that never needs improving and yet it's at a 67% average. Throw up it up next to Other M and Yoshio Sakamoto's origin story of Samus is 11% better! Hahaha. Yeah, right.

I've pretty much learned to stop trusting every video game review after what happened to Jeff Gerstmann over Ratchet and Clank and Kane and Lynch at gamespot. Sony and Eidos threatened and intimidated gamespot's marketing into firing Jeff for giving out low review scores. Every major video game web site and publisher are in bed with each other. Publishers give out free review copies, swag and ad money, "journalists" skew their review scores higher. If they had to buy games like us, things would be a different story.

[Mirr0rR3flection]

metacritic has become kind of a joke to me.

Its always been a joke to me. I don't take anyone who considers metacritic credible seriously.

[Einar1025]

I would personally give skyward sword a lower score. I hated that game. Out of 100 , I would probably give it a 40 or so...

[OprahFTWinfrey]

The only thing worse than the regular scores on Metacritic, are the user reviews and scores. Almost everybody gives a game either a zero or a ten, and even worse than that are the users who'll review a game before it's even released! I remember seeing around 20 user reviews for Skyward Sword about a week before it even came out. The whole website's rediculous, just garbage.

[Sailing_Day]

While Skyward Sword was okay, it is nowhere near game of the year for me...

Skyrim, which you call "full of unresolved bugs" (Which is not at all true, you can play Skyrim and not run into any bugs, even back in December) is much more deserving of that title for me, merely because I was much more immersed and I was entertained for a much longer time with that game than with Skyward Sword.

That said, Metacritic is terrible for games.