Letter to the Editor: Gamepro

Dear Editor:

I'm writing in regards to a piece in last month's issue that discussed the relevancy of Metacritic and it's scoring system. Being, what I consider, an avid gamer, I find it somewhat disturbing that score, it seems, has become everything: the life and death of games hinge on it. I also find it disturbing that so many gamers place so much faith in the decision of one site, even if it supposedly pools scores from multiple sources.

How, ultimately, does Marc Doyle and crew decide what gaming sites and reviewers to include in their secret, algorithmic potion? Oh sure, it's great that Metacritic divulges a list of full reviews from sites ranging from IGN to Playstation: The Official Magazine to Eurogamer to Playstation Universe, but, as is noted in the article, what's the use for reviews when there are scores plastered at the top of every review link?

Take, for example, Gamepro's review of Just Cause 2. Gamepro's review firmly left the game with three stars and cited more cons than pros within the game. Metacritic firmly scores the game an overall 83 just above the summary at the top of the page. Thus, the first thing seen is the score glaring right back at you. Why continue down the page if the score is right there, if the score is all that matters?

And, I'm sure, as I've seen on Gamepro.com forums and replies, many that gave the game a low score have been touted as being overly harsh of a game that has made significant improvements over the previous installment - but these criticisms seem to be a Metacritic ailment. Again, don't disagree with the review-gurus or stand to face the consequences.

But the point here is this: I like Just Cause 2 and yes, reviews and scores are helpful to gamers, but ultimately just because a critic/reviewer proclaims a game sub-par or horrendous even, doesn't mean that game is sub-par or horrendous - it all depends on the player. One player's horrible experience is another's wonderland.

And that's why, I think, a combination of review and score are necessary on a site like Metacritic or, for that matter, any gaming publication, online or print. It is necessary that the score, at least, be below the review so that the score is not taken at face value, but is corroborated by, at least some, evidence.

I think a lot of great games get thrown to the wayside because reviewers are seen as absolute and scores deified. One site, review, or score should wield the power of life or death over any game.