How Video Game Review Scores Work: Metacritic, OpenCritic Explained

Video game review scores shape purchasing decisions, influence developer reputations, and determine which titles enter the cultural conversation. Publishers and players alike rely on aggregated review data to understand a game’s critical reception, yet few understand how these scores are calculated, weighted, and presented to the public. Understanding the mechanics behind Metacritic, OpenCritic, and similar platforms reveals both the science and the subjective nature of game criticism.

The Foundation: Individual Review Scores and Normalization

Every aggregated review score begins with individual critic assessments from outlets like IGN, GameSpot, Polygon, and hundreds of other publications. These critics assign numerical scores using different scales—some use 0-10, others use 0-100, and some employ letter grades like A+ through F. Aggregation platforms face an immediate challenge: converting these disparate scoring systems into a unified metric that allows meaningful comparison across reviewers.

Metacritic, founded in 1999 by Marc Doyle, pioneered this normalization process. The platform converts all review scores to a 0-100 scale using mathematical formulas. A review scored as 8/10 becomes 80, while a letter grade of A becomes 90. This standardization allows a critic using a 5-star system to be weighted equally with a critic using a 100-point scale. OpenCritic, launched in 2015 as an alternative aggregator, employs similar normalization techniques while offering additional transparency features.

Weighted Averages and Critic Credibility Tiers

Once individual scores are normalized, aggregators do not simply calculate a basic arithmetic mean. Instead, they apply weighting systems that prioritize reviews from established, professional outlets over smaller or less established critics. Metacritic assigns different weight values to publications based on their perceived credibility, traffic, and historical accuracy in reviewing games. Major outlets like The New York Times, The Guardian, and established gaming press receive higher weight multipliers than independent bloggers or emerging outlets.

This weighting system directly impacts final scores. A positive review from IGN carries more mathematical influence than an identical positive review from a smaller publication. Metacritic has faced criticism over its weighting methodology, as the company does not publicly disclose which outlets receive which weight values. OpenCritic addressed this concern by introducing its “Critic Tier” system, which openly categorizes critics into Tier 1 (major publications), Tier 2 (established gaming media), and Tier 3 (smaller outlets), with transparent weighting explanations available to users.

The Metascore, User Scores, and Their Distinction

Metacritic displays two separate scores for most games: the Metascore (critic aggregate) and the User Score. The Metascore represents the weighted average of professional reviews, while the User Score aggregates ratings from players who submit their own numerical assessments. These scores use identical 0-100 scales but derive from fundamentally different populations with different expertise levels and motivations. A game might receive a Metascore of 75 while earning a User Score of 62, reflecting a divergence between professional critics and the playing public.

This divergence occurs regularly and reveals important patterns. The 2017 game Metacritic entry for “The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild” achieved a Metascore of 97 with a User Score of 8.3/10 (converted to 83 on the 100-point scale), showing stronger professional consensus than player consensus. Conversely, some games receive higher User Scores than Metascores when player communities feel critics undervalued accessibility, entertainment value, or specific features that matter to the playing audience.

Evolution of Review Aggregation and Industry Adoption

Before Metacritic’s launch, game publishers and consumers relied on individual review publications to form opinions about game quality. The aggregation model transformed how the industry operated by creating a single, quantified metric that could be cited in marketing materials, investor reports, and industry discussions. Metacritic’s influence grew substantially through the 2000s and 2010s, becoming so culturally significant that some publishers tied developer bonuses to Metacritic score thresholds—a practice that incentivized quality improvements but also created pressure and workplace stress within development studios.

OpenCritic’s 2015 launch provided competition and alternatives to Metacritic’s methodology. When Bethesda’s 2015 game “Fallout 4” achieved a Metascore of 84, both aggregators displayed the same underlying reviews but presented them through different interfaces and weighting systems. OpenCritic’s emphasis on transparency and critic categorization appealed to players seeking to understand how scores were calculated, though Metacritic retained dominant market position due to historical precedent and widespread integration into gaming platforms and retail systems.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why do some reviews not appear on Metacritic or OpenCritic?

Aggregators only include reviews from publications meeting specific criteria regarding traffic, professional standards, and review format. A review must be published by a qualifying outlet, use a clear numerical score, and meet length and content requirements. Independent reviewers and very small outlets typically do not meet these thresholds, though OpenCritic includes more Tier 3 outlets than Metacritic does.

Can a game’s score change after release?

Yes, scores update as new reviews are added to the database. If a major outlet publishes a review weeks after a game’s launch, it enters the aggregate and can shift the final score. However, individual published reviews do not change once added, so historical score shifts reflect new reviews joining the calculation rather than existing reviews being altered.

How many reviews does a game need for a valid Metascore?

Metacritic requires a minimum threshold of reviews before displaying a Metascore, though the exact number is not publicly specified. Games with very few reviews may display individual scores without an aggregate. This prevents games reviewed by only one or two critics from receiving misleading aggregate scores that lack statistical validity.

Review aggregation platforms have become essential infrastructure in the gaming industry, translating diverse critical perspectives into standardized metrics that inform decisions across the entire ecosystem. Understanding how these scores are calculated—through normalization, weighting, and mathematical aggregation—reveals that review scores represent not objective truth but rather a structured synthesis of professional opinion designed for practical application.