How Video Game Review Scores Work: Metacritic, OpenCritic Explained
Video game review scores shape purchasing decisions, influence developer reputation, and determine which titles receive industry recognition. Players and industry professionals rely on aggregated review platforms to synthesize dozens of critical opinions into digestible metrics. Understanding how these scoring systems function reveals the mechanics behind the numbers that matter to gamers worldwide.
The Foundation: What Review Aggregation Actually Does
Review aggregation collects critical scores from numerous publications and outlets, then combines them into a single numerical value that represents critical consensus. Rather than forcing players to read 50 individual reviews, aggregators like Metacritic and OpenCritic calculate weighted averages that provide immediate context about a game’s critical reception. This process transforms subjective critical opinions into standardized data points that enable comparison across titles, platforms, and time periods.
Metacritic, founded in 1999 by Marc Doyle, pioneered this concept in the gaming industry and remains the most widely recognized aggregator. The platform currently tracks reviews from over 100 publications across multiple platforms, processing thousands of reviews monthly to maintain its comprehensive database of game scores.
How Metacritic Calculates Its Scores
Metacritic converts each review into a 0-100 scale, regardless of the original scoring system used by the publication. A publication using a 5-star system, a letter grade, or a 10-point scale all get normalized to this universal standard through mathematical conversion. The platform then applies weighted averages, meaning scores from outlets it deems more credible or influential receive slightly more impact on the final Metascore than scores from smaller publications.
The weighting system remains proprietary and undisclosed, though Metacritic has stated that established publications with consistent review histories receive higher weight. When The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild released in 2017, it achieved a Metascore of 97 across multiple platforms, reflecting near-universal critical acclaim with minimal dissenting opinions among major outlets.
OpenCritic’s Alternative Approach and Transparency
OpenCritic launched in 2014 as an alternative aggregator emphasizing transparency and community input. Rather than using a proprietary weighting system, OpenCritic displays all reviews equally in its calculations, assigning each outlet the same influence regardless of size or perceived authority. The platform also introduced the “Critic Tiers” system, which categorizes outlets by their historical review patterns to help users understand potential bias in aggregate scores.
OpenCritic’s Opencritic Score (OCS) functions as a simple average of all included reviews, making the calculation fully transparent and reproducible by any user. The platform additionally features a “Top Critic” distinction that highlights reviews from established publications, allowing players to filter their view of critical consensus based on their preferences.
The Evolution of Review Scoring Standards
Before aggregation became standard, individual review scores held outsized influence on a game’s commercial success and critical legacy. Publications maintained idiosyncratic scoring systems—some using 100-point scales, others using 5-point systems—making direct comparison between reviews difficult. The fragmentation of review scoring created an information problem that aggregation solved by standardizing how critical opinions reach consumers.
The impact of aggregation became apparent during the 2006 release of The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, which achieved a Metascore of 95 on GameCube. This high aggregate score, combined with massive pre-release hype, demonstrated how aggregated scores could validate commercial expectations and influence purchase behavior on a scale individual reviews could never achieve.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why do the same games sometimes have different scores on Metacritic and OpenCritic?
The platforms include different sets of publications in their calculations, and they weight scores differently. Metacritic’s proprietary weighting system prioritizes certain outlets, while OpenCritic treats all reviews equally, leading to divergent final scores even when reviewing the same game.
Do review scores actually affect game sales and developer success?
Aggregate scores significantly influence consumer purchasing decisions and can impact a game’s commercial performance, particularly around the 75-85 score range where perception of quality becomes ambiguous. Publishers and developers monitor these scores closely, as they affect marketing messaging, industry awards eligibility, and long-term franchise viability.
What counts as a “major” publication in aggregation systems?
Metacritic determines major publications through internal criteria it does not publicly disclose, though established outlets like IGN, GameSpot, and Polygon consistently receive inclusion. OpenCritic’s transparency allows users to see exactly which publications contributed to any given score, eliminating mystery around which voices shaped the aggregate.
Review aggregation fundamentally changed how critical consensus reaches gaming audiences by converting subjective opinions into quantifiable data. Both Metacritic and OpenCritic serve essential functions in the gaming ecosystem, though they approach the same problem through different methodologies that reflect distinct philosophies about transparency and authority.
