Metacritic

[MPPlantOfficial]

Given the current state of gaming "journalism", Metacritic to be the only platform that is both widely recognized and relatively valued by the gaming community. It's an added bonus that the site doesn't require you to own the game to leave a review.

But looking at the actual ratings, seems like it's either a 0 or a 10;
I mean geez even with the game (76, Battlefront, whatever...) being 100% "functional" do they actually deserve a 10? The 10s seem to all be pathetic attempts to "damage control".

 

[Millim]

Very few games (if any) are worthy of either a 0 or 10.

It's why I don't like putting a number on things.
76 is a pretty clear example of a 2, a game that is just broken beyond repair and has some aggressive use of micro transactions. But one can still load the game and I guess the base mechanics works. Hence why it's a 2.

Hell, even New Vegas, while I prefer it over F1, is no more than a 7 while F1 is a 9.

Again, I don't like putting a number of things, but them the ways.

 

[R.Graves]

Numbers are a bit annoying because a numbered score implies quality and appeal can both be objectively quantified. i mean yes quality can but then you have to take into account franchise context, player tastes and standards and it just becomes a big grey mess at some point. so, yeah, unless you ignore everything except how objectively well elements were handled in the game then number scores dont make sense.