Funny how the metacritic score for Wargame is only 79, while the vast majority of reviews are above 80/100. Just a few really bad reviews can significantly pull down the game average far below where it really ought to be.
They should really post a median score rather than an average score. I think it would be more accurate.
I think the user ratings are more accurate than the critic ratings in this case.
Critics are almost forced to give every game a decent review. Even the worst of the worst games get 8s on most professional reviewing websites.
Take RAGE for the PC: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/rage
79%, pretty good score. RAGE on launch did not actually work or run. It took a month for them to fix it for users of one type of graphics cards and another three months for them to create a fix for a different user of a graphics card. Despite this most game review websites gave this an 80 or a 90 because they got an advance copy of the game that was playable.
I would never trust the reviews of a professional website anymore. If everyone is giving this game an 80 or a 90 they're doing it because they have to, not based on the merits of the game. It's actually unfortunate because it doesn't leave much of a performance benchmark for the devs.