Metacritic or Gamerankings?.

The problem with Gamerankings is they don't cap when a review can be put in. Look at Halo 3 a year after the game came out there is a review from VGChartz which gave Halo 3 it's lowest score. HarlockJC

Though a year is way to much...

I vote gamerankings because Dracula68 is watching us >_>killerfist

I've always liked Gamerankings.

Neither. If you want to find out how good a game is, read the reviews, don't just look at an average of a bunch of scores.

The problem with Gamerankings is they don't cap when a review can be put in. Look at Halo 3 a year after the game came out there is a review from VGChartz which gave Halo 3 it's lowest score. HarlockJC

[QUOTE="HarlockJC"]The problem with Gamerankings is they don't cap when a review can be put in. Look at Halo 3 a year after the game came out there is a review from VGChartz which gave Halo 3 it's lowest score. Dracula68

]Notice how all the reviews are in 2007, and one -- vgchartz -- is 2009. Doesn't matter if there are 11 other scores below it, the fact that the game was scored years down the line makes the review and score blatantly invalid. It's an outlier. Just my two cents.Stevo_the_gamer

Eh, none of the above? They're nice when you're trying to track down early reviews, but focusing on the score rather than the review itself is wrong (nevermind trying to convert scores to provide an average rating).

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

Metacritic got rid of all the old games. Gamerankings.

oldkingallant

Which is why I like Gamerankings now because those old games are just as relevant now with Virtual Console and rereleases.

Gamerankings of course, because apparently Metacritic can't count.

I really think Gamerankings is better. And also, Metacritic put away all the older games, which make it more irrevelant than it already is.

The game industry uses metacritic for the most part. On Steam, for instance, they list the Metacritic score next to games. Same for onlive. Seems like I read an article in GameInformer about most publishers going by metacritic scores also.

ianuilliam

yep.

in EA's quarterly reports they list off their games and the aggregate scores according to Metacritic.

I stopped acknowledging Gamerankings because they included reviews that were over a year after the game's release. and that they acknowledge VGChartz as a credible reviewer.

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]

The game industry uses metacritic for the most part. On Steam, for instance, they list the Metacritic score next to games. Same for onlive. Seems like I read an article in GameInformer about most publishers going by metacritic scores also.

HavocV3

yep.

in EA's quarterly reports they list off their games and the aggregate scores according to Metacritic.

I stopped acknowledging Gamerankings because they included reviews that were over a year after the game's release. and that they acknowledge VGChartz as a credible reviewer.

I'm not disagreeing there. He stated it was the lowest score and clearly it is not. Dracula68

Google alerts scares me now.

[QUOTE="Dracula68"]I'm not disagreeing there. He stated it was the lowest score and clearly it is not. Stevo_the_gamer

Harlock runs away and cries in the corner.

[QUOTE="Dracula68"]I love MC because that idiot that runs GR is ...well an idiot! (Did I just say that out loud?)Stevo_the_gamer

Neither because different places rate their games differently (some are more harsh or tend to rate one type of game higher than others etc) that that composite score doesn't mean a huge about. I read individual reviews

I think people take these things too seriosly, but the thing I like about Metacritic is that you can read multiple opinions from different critics. This is better than using only one opinion to determine the purchase of something, which is why IMO Metacritic > GS.

GameRankings is better because Zelda:OoT isn't number 1 like on every list. Most overrated game ever.CPX7700

A thread from 2010, wtf dude, just WTF!?!? :x