Playstation game reviews

So imho its clear as day that sony buys reviews and has ruined game reviews in general. Before 360/ps3 era, if a game was getting alot of 90s, it must of been a great game. Nowadays, not so much. I think it started with killzone 2.

Killzone 2 has a 91 meta, its an ok generic fps, but lay off the crackpipe if you think its worthy of 91 meta.

From there the list goes on and on. Uncharted 2, a generic tps that did absolutely nothing new, has a 96 meta. If I could I would bet my life savings on sony paid for those reviews.

Uncharted 3 has 92 meta, once again a generic tps with a tacked on multiplayer than was such a ghost town sony made it f2p.

God of war 3, a bare bones hack n slash, with a linear 10 hour campaign has a 92 meta. Pretty much every other hack n slash game has deeper gameplay than god of war 3 yet god of war 3 outscores them. Dmc4 has longer campaign, multiple characters to play as, bloody palace mode, like 7 difficulties, and gameplay is way deeper but the game has a 84 meta.

Tlou has a 95 meta yet the gameplay is that of a subpar tps with crappy stealth mechanics.

Bloodborn has a higher meta than any dark souls game yet it has like half the content of any dark souls game.

Thats just a few of them. I made this topic because I was wondering if amyone sincerely thinks these games are worthy of their scores. These scores should be for truly great game that people with come back to play 50 years from now. In 2066 people are gonna go back and play trash like killzone 2, uncharted 2, and god of war 3 and theyll wonder wtf people in the 2000s were smoking.

Meta scores are a collection of people's opinion so for Sony to pay for reviews they would be paying alot of reviewers. At the end of the day Meta just collects data, the score is not from Meta itself.

Everyone knows how metacritic works, its not complicated. These gaming media companies need stuff like cameras and tvs which Sony could provide. Obviously Sony isn't sending checks directly to the reviewers, but if sony is providing a gaming media company with equipment or ad revenue, it could be frowned upon to give an ok Sony published game a bad review. It happened at gamespot with Kane n lynch over ad revenue so it can easily happen.

At newest e3 Sony pretty much rebooted god of war, why would they reboot it and change the gameplay if the last one was getting perfect review scores?

Chrischris907 wrote:Everyone knows how metacritic works, its not complicated. These gaming media companies need stuff like cameras and tvs which Sony could provide. Obviously Sony isn't sending checks directly to the reviewers, but if sony is providing a gaming media company with equipment or ad revenue, it could be frowned upon to give an ok Sony published game a bad review. It happened at gamespot with Kane n lynch over ad revenue so it can easily happen.

At newest e3 Sony pretty much rebooted god of war, why would they reboot it and change the gameplay if the last one was getting perfect review scores?

To prevent the game from getting stale. The last one averaged an 80. So yeah, it needed to change.