Hate to be pedantic here, but OXM gave the game 9 out of 10, not 90%. They are not the same. If OXM classed the game as 94% then it still receive 9 out of 10. It's a subtle difference but it matters (to me anyway) - God maybe I am a pedant?

Hate to correct a pedant, but are you aware that metacritic scores out of 100, hence invalidating any point you were attempting to make...

I can see the point here, if the game got say 9.4/10 its the same as 94% and sof forth.

I more noticed them saying that GameDaily gave the lowest score at 80% ...as did a few of others. GameDaily just happened to be at the bottom. Just seems like a quick piece wrote up on a quick glance at metacritic.

I don't think metacritic really works anyway because of the different scales and what value the reviewer regarded as average. 4/5 is 80% in maths, but not in a review.

It's a shame it's so heavily used now.

@Adam. Yeah you kinda missed the point. Metacritic may score out of 100, but OXM scores out of 10. 9/10 is not 90/100. As Jack says: it is in maths but not in reviews.
The point I was trying to make was that if OXM thought the game was a 9.4/10 they would still give it 9 because (and here the bit I should have put in my original post) they don't do fractional scores. So 9.4/10 for would be scored as 9/10.

Hope that make some kind of sense. The real point is that Metacritic scores are not gospel - close, but not exact. Metacritic does seem to be becoming some sort of defacto standard for the industry though. Not a good thing in my opinion.

Nope. It still doesn't make ANY KIND OF RATIONAL SENSE. OXM doesn't do fractional scores (to best of my knowledge) so 9/10 'IS' 90%.

4/5 is 80%. In Maths AND in a review. What else can it be?

Metacritic is a great guide to average review score, because it works. Get over it.

@6: I think what noob is trying to say is: because OXM don't do fractional scores, you will not see a 94% score in OXM. There is no granularity. You get a 9 or you get a 10, there is no half way. So if the OXM game reviewer thinks the game deserves a 9.4 it doesn't get it. It gets 9. So the Metacritic score would be missing 4%.

What Noob has failed to realise is that this is a failing of OXM or any other review which only uses interger scores and not a failing of metacritic. The 4% is missing from OXM and not metacritic.

@Adam: No offense, but you are wrong. Noob & BC are right. Their point requires a bit of logical thinking. It basically has to do with 'rounding' in math...But I don't blame metacritic, I blame game sites who use scoring systems not based on 100%. I mean a 5 whole-star rating system is grossly inadequate as is the 10 whole number point system. But metacritic serves a very useful function imo and does the best it can given some review sites insistence on using inadequate scoring methods. When I become world dictator I will demand all reviews use a 0-100% system in order to allow metacritic to be absolutely precise.

Anyway, I know you probably still don't understand, but just know the posts above are right and you are wrong, it's nothing personal. :) It's not as if I think you are a mutant, although I'm not excluding that possibility either.

Oh and the bigger point is Fallout 3 is REALLY good and all the reviews reflect that. I originally highly doubted their ability to make Fallout 3 live up to the epic Fallout world, but it would appear I was wrong. I'm not saying I'm a mutant, but I'm also not excluding the possibility...

I think the score out of 5 is a better method than percentages. There is something too clinical about percentages and people put too much into scores when making their buying choice.

OMG you guys are confusing???