"3 converts too low, 5 converts too high, 4 is about right.  So unless you are expecting 3s or lower, then a 5 star scale converts in your favour.  You are far more likely to receive a 100% MC score out of a 5 star system that you are from a site marking directly in percentages.  To maximize your chances of ending up with a 95+% Metacritic score overall, you ought to be stacking as many 5* review sites as possible, imo.  If you have no confidence in your game, then yes you should avoid them, because 2s and 3s are really punishing when converted.  But obviously, handpicking your reviewers trumps any other method. "

This stuff about paying for reviews, or only giving copies to reviewers they "trust" is kind of silly. They give limited copies to the most popular sites. That's about it. There was never any real doubt that the game would get decent reviews. Rockstar is just miserly with review copies. I can't really blame them for this, even as I'm disappointed that Giant Bomb won't get a review copy. They're a big dog in the market, and they basically get to do what they want. It's no surprise to me, then, that they ... do exactly what they want. I doubt it has anything to do with managing the metacritic score. It's probably just that the company is overzealous in keeping things to themselves.

This is a comment from an IGN editor: 

Unfortunately. Rockstar was unable to provide us with a copy of the PS3 edition of Red Dead Redemption early and so we've had to delay that review until we get a chance to take it for a spin.

" @Jayross:The PS3 review is out already. Its on par with the 360 version "

" @DystopiaX: but... he went to Yale! "

hopefully they explained, or at least mentioned what exactly happened with RDR on the bombcast, guess we'll know tomorow

Well almost on par if you dont count IGNs weird marking scheme. The PS3 version got 9.7 compared to 9.8 on the Xbox

Link

There are a few reviews out there and most of them are giving it either 9.5 or a 10.  So pretty much a good review for RDR, which means that all the hype just wasn't bullshit.

Reviews or not, this game will be great.

Why? Metracritic translating BOGT from 3 stars to to 60% is probably one factor. In videogame scores 60 is considered failing. Might as well be zero stars as far as the publisher is concerned.
 
GB Staff, you guys HAVE to ask metacritic to stop posting your reviews until they agree to scale the stars differently. Just like X-Play.

Rockstar's PR team are just extremely insecure, despite their games being relatively good.

They have to get the most people to buy it so they make sure that they give early copies to companies that they trust will give them good scores.

Oh noes, some reviewers will have to buy their own copy like everyone else. They're not required to give out free stuff, so let them distribute as they please. Didn't Giant Bomb give GTA IV the "Game Of The Year" title for 2008 though?

" @cancerdancer said:

" Quality control over the reviews. They send out review copies to the companies they trust. "

Read: Pay. "

this is how gta4 is rated higher than half life 2 
also 
always angry change ur fucking picture 
it isnt showing support its fucking stupid that is linkyshinks pic not urs

" @ColumnBreaker said:

" @cancerdancer said:

" Quality control over the reviews. They send out review copies to the companies they trust. "

Read: Pay. "

Rockstar doesn't have to pay for good scores. "

All I know is this game has the same sluggish pig shit controls as GTAIV, then it's gonna be a piece of crap game like GTAIV was.

" @JeffGoldblum said:

" @ColumnBreaker said:

" @cancerdancer said:

" Quality control over the reviews. They send out review copies to the companies they trust. "

Read: Pay. "

Rockstar doesn't have to pay for good scores. "

Nor do they have to make games that deserve them in order to receive them. "

" @MrKlorox said:

" @JeffGoldblum said:

" @ColumnBreaker said:

" @cancerdancer said:

" Quality control over the reviews. They send out review copies to the companies they trust. "

Read: Pay. "

Rockstar doesn't have to pay for good scores. "

Nor do they have to make games that deserve them in order to receive them. "

No matter how you personally feel about Rockstar's games, you can't deny that they make quality products. "

" @JeffGoldblum said:

" @MrKlorox said:

" @JeffGoldblum said:

" @ColumnBreaker said:

" @cancerdancer said:

" Quality control over the reviews. They send out review copies to the companies they trust. "

Read: Pay. "

Rockstar doesn't have to pay for good scores. "

Nor do they have to make games that deserve them in order to receive them. "

No matter how you personally feel about Rockstar's games, you can't deny that they make quality products. "

Idiots prefer planes and rocket launchers to good story, you can't change it no matter how much you try, "

" @MrKlorox said:

" @JeffGoldblum said:

" @ColumnBreaker said:

" @cancerdancer said:

" Quality control over the reviews. They send out review copies to the companies they trust. "

Read: Pay. "

Rockstar doesn't have to pay for good scores. "

Nor do they have to make games that deserve them in order to receive them. "

No matter how you personally feel about Rockstar's games, you can't deny that they make quality products. "

" @JeffGoldblum said:

" @MrKlorox said:

" @JeffGoldblum said:

" @ColumnBreaker said:

" @cancerdancer said:

" Quality control over the reviews. They send out review copies to the companies they trust. "

Read: Pay. "

Rockstar doesn't have to pay for good scores. "

Nor do they have to make games that deserve them in order to receive them. "

No matter how you personally feel about Rockstar's games, you can't deny that they make quality products. "

Idiots prefer planes and rocket launchers to good story, you can't change it no matter how much you try, "

I find it odd and kinda comical how a lot of big sites do not have early reviews (GB, Joystiq, Kotaku, Gamespot, etc...) while has a video review -   

so did they actually play the game or just list of shit that was known that you could do in the game.

I think a lot of people here are reading too far into this. This is an industry that CANNOT hold a secret. If a popular site was paid for a good review, YOU WOULD KNOW IT. Rockstar sent review copies to major, credible sites (1up, IGN, GameTrailers) as well as lesser, minor sites that they knew will kiss their ass (Boomtown and all those other ones nobody reads).  
 
You look at Giant Bomb and Joystiq, and they will most definitely go against the flow sometimes. Someone at Rockstar (or Take Two?) no doubt knew this and figured it would just be safer to leave them off the list, to - yeah - "protect" the Metacritic average. 
 
 
But it pains me to know that there are STILL people that think game reviewers are paid off. They're absolutely not.

"  ...also always angry change ur fucking picture it isnt showing support its fucking stupid that is linkyshinks pic not urs "

They sent a review copy out to this guy for fuck's sake. Easy to tell when stuff like this is done to preserve a high rating at the game's release. This guy is from my city, almost makes me want to get my face up on youtube as a reviewer now... >_>
 
 

Giantbomb might have rejected their offer of advertising on the site. Since we all know Whiskey Media is strict when it comes to advertising, Rockstar might not be too happy with their proposal getting shot down.
If you can get and advertising spot on Giantbomb, you have to mean something.
 
I don't know really. Perhaps they just don't trust indie sites, even though they (mostly) make good games.

Taken off of the Whiskey Media main page:   "Giant Bomb is the last gaming site that gives a sh*t."

I really REALLY don't think Rockstar are worried about this game getting a bad score of anybody ROTFL this is GOTY all day long there is nothing on the release calendar for 2010 that even comes close to this masterpiece, good show Rockstar

That definitely sucks, I know I asked for a copy for my site but when I never heard back I just assumed it was because we weren`t big enough draw for them. Makes a little more sense now I guess but hey it`s their game and if they don`t want to send out review copies well that`s their prerogative nothing I can do about it.

" @cancerdancer said:

" Quality control over the reviews. They send out review copies to the companies they trust. "

This. Gotta control the metacritic average otherwise someone gets fired. "

Honestly, if the review is not out by Thursday then Giantbomb needn't even bother posting a review. Totally not Giantbomb's fault, but that's just the way things are these days, I guess.

i have read the Game Informer and 1up reviews, watched the IGN video review and all three were in spirit and in form the exact same review.  After watching the IGN video review of Red Dead i loaded up and watched their GTA 4 video review and it was same guy saying the same things about both games with out one original thought insight into Red Dead. Its crazy how carbon copy all this shit is.  I have a feeling the game will be good, but i don't fully trust the reviews that i have read. Giant Bomb is my measuring stick for game purchases and with out their input i am left feeling like i playing a none lethal game of Russian roulette with my money. 
 
Well either way i am going to get Alan Wake and i guess Red Dead as soon as the FutureShop opens @ 9:30MNT

I dont care what reviews the game gets , I plan on getting the game anyway . I doubt it will be a pile of shit . So that is good enough for me

"
This staff @Giantbomb has shown little to no interest in RDR,no?  I wonder if that factors in. Have they run any preview stuff about RDR?  None that I'm aware of.  I've also heard Jeff and Ryan say many times they had to purchase games.  This seems like Giantbomb's issue more than any silly R* conspiracy or fear of some metacritic score reductions.  The game's getting stellar reviews across the board.  And Gametrailers does have one up: 
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/review-hd-red-dead/100286       And somehow blaming other sites like IGN for their early reviews with the justification thet they pad scores to get early review copies is just rediculous.  Print copies might be another story, but I do not believe any of this shit about 'subtle' payoffs for website reviewers.  Giantbomb has become, for me, more of an entertainment site vs. information because the crew are just fun and so damn hilarious mostly, and less of a site for baseing purchase decisions on.  Their reviews are just not as timely, and some lately from Brad, sorry to say, have just been misleading, and inaccurate imo.  "

" @pweidman said:

"
This staff @Giantbomb has shown little to no interest in RDR,no?  I wonder if that factors in. Have they run any preview stuff about RDR?  None that I'm aware of.  I've also heard Jeff and Ryan say many times they had to purchase games.  This seems like Giantbomb's issue more than any silly R* conspiracy or fear of some metacritic score reductions.  The game's getting stellar reviews across the board.  And Gametrailers does have one up: 
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/review-hd-red-dead/100286       And somehow blaming other sites like IGN for their early reviews with the justification thet they pad scores to get early review copies is just rediculous.  Print copies might be another story, but I do not believe any of this shit about 'subtle' payoffs for website reviewers.  Giantbomb has become, for me, more of an entertainment site vs. information because the crew are just fun and so damn hilarious mostly, and less of a site for baseing purchase decisions on.  Their reviews are just not as timely, and some lately from Brad, sorry to say, have just been misleading, and inaccurate imo.  "

this shit again? They have the EXACT SAME TRAILERS up as every other site. "