What Metacritic Does and Doesn’t Tell You
At first glance, Metacritic makes it simple: a game gets a score between 0 and 100, based on critic and user reviews. But behind that tidy number is a whole maze of weightings, conversions, and assumptions. Professional critics get more influence than user ratings. Some outlets’ reviews are weighted more heavily than others though Metacritic doesn’t publish exactly how or why. Meanwhile, written reviews must often be boiled down into a number, even if the original reviewer never included one. That’s already a bit blurry.
Then there’s the deeper problem: interpreting what a score like 75 really means. For a massive AAA release with hundreds of millions behind it, 75 might signal underperformance or a missed opportunity. For a scrappy indie with new ideas and a tiny team, it could mean punching way above its weight. Context matters but Metacritic flattens that nuance into a clean, impersonal number.
Worse, we tend to treat that number as a kind of final judgment. Is a game over 90? Must play. Under 70? Skip it. That binary mindset doesn’t reflect reality. Scores can suggest quality, but they don’t explain why the experience works or doesn’t. To really understand whether a game is for you, you’ve got to go beyond the number and actually engage with the reviews, not just the scoreline.
The Influence of Score Culture in 2026
In 2026, a game’s Metacritic score isn’t just a number it’s a currency. A few points can make or break internal studio bonuses, dictate marketing budgets, or nudge a franchise toward cancellation. It’s not always fair, but it’s real. Publishers still tie contracts and success metrics to those little decimals, even when most players don’t.
This kind of pressure breeds what many in the industry now call “score anxiety.” Developers feel it. Hard. Some studios launch “review bootcamps” internally, prepping teams before release like it’s an exam where anything below an 85 is failure. It’s not about art it’s about optics.
Then there’s the chaos of user scores. Bots, pile ons, review bombs. Games get slammed not just for bugs, but for politics, pricing models, or something a lead dev tweeted five years ago. It takes a few angry people and one subreddit to knock a score sideways. Sure, Metacritic filters some of this just not all. And the public rarely knows which is which.
In a time when noise often outweighs nuance, these scores still steer perception. But as 2026 proves again, they’re more a reflection of what swirls around the game than the game itself.
Nuance Over Numbers
Metacritic turns complex creative work into simple digits and that’s where the trouble starts. A game’s score often reflects broad consensus, but not individual taste or deeper ambition. Some genres just don’t review well. Mid budget experimental RPGs or narrative driven walking sims might never hit 90+, even when they push the medium forward. Meanwhile, polished but safe shooters rake in high marks for ticking familiar boxes.
Then there’s context. Who’s reviewing matters. A critic raised on Souls likes might drag a cozy farming sim without meaning to. One person’s pacing issue is another’s vibe. Without knowing a reviewer’s preferences, knowledge of a genre, or expectations going in, the score becomes hollow. Reviews aren’t math they’re opinions dressed up as data.
A 68 on Metacritic could mean average to some. To you, it might be the perfect storm of mechanics, mood, and music. That’s not a flaw it’s the point. The real value in criticism comes when you spot the quirks in a review and think, “Yeah, but I would love that.”
Real Example: Elden Ring DLC and Score Perception
A Split Verdict: Critics vs. Fans
When Shadow of the Erdtree released in 2025, excitement was high but the reception was more complicated. While professional reviewers largely praised the DLC for its expansive design and challenging content, user reviews painted a more divisive picture.
Critic Consensus Highlights:
Applauded the rich world building and level design
Noted technical polish and high production value
Praised for staying true to the spirit of the base game
Fan Reactions Showed Mixed Signals:
Some players felt the DLC leaned too hard into difficulty, deterring more casual fans
Others criticized perceived lack of innovation or re used assets
Performance issues on older hardware led to negative scores that reflected optimization rather than gameplay concerns
Does the Metascore Reflect Reality?
The Metascore for Shadow of the Erdtree sat in the mid 80s on launch. On the surface, it signaled broad critical approval. But looking deeper, the wide range of user ratings from 10s praising the experience to 2s attacking the difficulty curve showed just how varied the player experience really was.
Metacritic’s average masked the individualized meanings behind each review whether praising, critiquing, or review bombing out of protest. In this way, the score became less a definitive summary and more a jumping off point for a complex conversation.
Our Take
In our full breakdown, we explore this discrepancy and break down both sides of the reception:
Elden Ring DLC Review Does Shadow of the Erdtree Deliver?
Bottom line: the Metascore doesn’t lie but it doesn’t tell the whole story either. Depending on your experience with the base game, your skill level, and what you want from FromSoftware’s content, Shadow of the Erdtree can feel like a masterpiece or a misstep.
When in doubt, step beyond the numbers and read the reviews themselves.
Making Smarter Use of Metacritic
Here’s the truth: a game’s Metacritic score is a starting point, not a full story. A 93 might still disappoint you. A 71 could be your surprise favorite of the year. Chasing high numbers without reading the actual reviews is like judging a book by its barcode.
Instead of fixating on the score, look at what the critics actually say. Are they knocking the combat, praising the pacing, calling it a slow burn or a high octane sprint? Match those takes with what you care about. If a critic trashes a game’s complexity but that’s exactly what you like then it’s probably right up your alley.
Metacritic works best as a tool, not a verdict. Use it to map out general impressions, spot red flags, or find patterns across opinions. But don’t let it decide what you play. That’s your call. Your taste, your time, your money. The number won’t know what you love but the reviews might help you find it.
Takeaway for Gamers in 2026
Game scores were never meant to tell the whole story. A number can’t account for what resonates with you, what challenges you enjoy, or which worlds you want to get lost in. That’s why now, more than ever, game ratings need human context your context.
Critical thinking beats the average. A Metascore says something, sure but it doesn’t say everything. Look past the digits. Read full reviews. Notice what critics are praising or panning, and ask if those things even matter to you.
Maybe you love janky RPGs with heart, or cozy puzzle games that never score above 70. That’s the point. Gaming in 2026 isn’t about chasing consensus it’s about following your taste. So trust it. Read deeper. Play what pulls you in. Let the critics guide, not decide.