It's a well-designed April Fool's joke , but it brings up an interesting question.
With so many so-called journalists and video game critics tossing their opinions and analysis into the Metacritic and GameRankings charts, it can be difficult to pinpoint the good reviewers. Would it be easier to have a site like "MetaMetaCritic" for people to locate the best writers and those who serve the public's interests well on a frequent basis?
These days, most people just stick to a favorite source or two, but critics tend to move about, and gamers may want to know where they go. After all, some people just tend to identify with a critic's tastes and style; they say to themselves, "Well, every game this guy has recommended I've liked, so I'm going to keep going by his reviews." And besides, wouldn't a rating system of some kind add some much-needed legitimacy to the industry? Or would it have the opposite effect, in that it actually seems childish on the surface? After all, there's no site that quantifies the quality of movie or music reviewers, is there?
Still, with the vast majority of game reviews online and not in print, and the fact that just about anyone can write a review for any given site, some sort of qualifying process might not be a bad idea. It might be especially helpful for newcomers to the world of video games, and such a site could even evaluate entire websites in terms of review quality, which would make things even easier. What do you think?