@TigerSuperman: These averages they do are stupid since they started a few years ago because companies are punished for making more games. Even if a company has higher scoring games, they are also punished for their lowest scoring games. To be the best, you have to make games that don't have to score the highest, but just hover above the average.
It punished companies for bringing more games to gamers. Not every game is going to be amazing. Averaging their scores is a terrible idea.
You can see that once again Nintendo and Sony have released rare AAA 90+ rated metacritic scored games, but because they released more games than the "metacritic winner", there are some stinkers at the bottom bringing down their average.
Basically, Sony and Nintendo "lost" because they each had released a game that was a 39/100 and brought their scores down. It seems rather stupid to declare a winner by default to the company with less games. Sony and Nintendo are being penalized for releasing more games (one of which was poor), but gamers simply just don't have to and won't buy the single stinker and will concentrate on the quality title. I've explained this before in other years.
Metacritic are treating each game as a "grade" and the companies are students. Here's the problem, some students have fare more assignments turned in than others. If anything, those assignments would be considered "extra credit" and not work to damage the student's (NIntendo and Sony) grades. Choosing say, the top 5 or 8 games from each company would be more fair, but imo, this shouldn't be done at all. It's silly to average scores and penalize companies that take more risks making more titles.
Also, Killer Instinct Season 2 has no metacrtiic official score. http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-one/killer-instinct-season-2/critic-reviews
You copy pasted Season 1's score to give the Xbone an advantage for some reason.
What I told him but he ignored it. More games tends to bring averages down....anyway it's better to look at how many score in the green. That is a true indicator of which company has more viable games.
Anyone that has taken a stat course knows they don't tell the story and can be skewed to achieve an objective. Which is what he did.
Yeah, that was the problem I had when Metacritic starting averaging their games a few years ago to "rank the publishers". People tend to overlook that releasing more games hurts your average and end up praising companies that release less games....because they won the skewed metacritic ranking.
Log in to comment