Well FO3 was first, whereas New Vegas felt like an expansion (a good one mind you) rather than something completely new.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
IGN: Is Metacritic Ruining The Games Industry?
- Thread starter pramath
- Start date
They're both guilty of the same fucking thing: abbreviating what should be described in words as a simple number that fails to explain in sufficient detail where a game succeeds and fails. They both feign objectivity and authority.
I realize IGN writes reviews; the thing is that they're usually so poorly written and hyperbolic that I prefer to think they don't bother to write anything at all.
They're not ruining the industry, anyway, except when they accept ad dollars from games they review.
I realize IGN writes reviews; the thing is that they're usually so poorly written and hyperbolic that I prefer to think they don't bother to write anything at all.
They're not ruining the industry, anyway, except when they accept ad dollars from games they review.
The problem isn't a bonus that is performance related, the problem is that Metacritic is not an appropriate tool for measuring performance. Even so, publishers continue to do so.
dragonfart28
Banned
Didn't they just answer themselves in the first quote?
IGN said:
But how is a 8/10 a bad score? People need to get the idea of a 6/10 as the equivalent of a D- or F like on a school scale out of their minds. An 6/10 to me is slightly above average, but has a number of flaws.
disappeared
Banned
Too much words, bro.
IGN said:
That sounds like a personal problem, and one that shouldn't reflect on Metacritic at all.
Also, I would love for IGN to wrestle up the balls, take a stand against the site and be delisted if they're going to run pieces like this questioning Metacritic's existence. However, we know that would never happen......so they should just shut the fuck up and continue covering the top ten female _______ in games.
SolidSnakex
Member
But if you've got an issue with buggy games then that should be something that's a negative across the board and not for select games. With Bethesda you'll actually see reviewers making excuses for them. "Well, it's such a big game and there's so much to do, so there's bound to be a lack of polish". Why shouldn't that also apply to Obsidian?
Metacritic is fine, besides some specific cases most games come out where they should be score wise. That's obviously if you're basing it on the gaming journalism scale where:
80-100 = Good - Amazing
70-80 = Decent. Probably worth it if you're a fan of the particular IP or if it's a niche, content-starved genre.
60-70 = Borderline bad.
< 60 = Crap.
80-100 = Good - Amazing
70-80 = Decent. Probably worth it if you're a fan of the particular IP or if it's a niche, content-starved genre.
60-70 = Borderline bad.
< 60 = Crap.
Because everyone is biased. Just look at all the excuses made for Diablo 3.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
Then what would be?
Sales are in no way an indication of quality, and if developer bonuses were solely linked to sales we'd see more 'me-too'ing and lowest common denominator chasing than we already do.
If they're linked to a quality analysis, then we're delving into highly subjective territory; whose opinion decides if a game is good enough to be worth a bonus or not?
Or should every game receive a flat bonus for shipping on time with less than [x] number of bugs, where we would see even more 'last years game, with different levels' by-the-numbers games than we already do?
Visualante2
Member
Developers I asked about it have said they like Metacritic bonuses. But they were all devs who got 80-90% games. The real problem is, would the bonus be there without Metacritic? Instead of the bonus being in the hands of critics it'd probably be transferred to the buying public with some arbitrary cap like "sell 2 million in NA"
There was an example of Alien Resurrection Edge mentioned. Fox were furious about how the game tanked, but it got such high reviews that it helped Argonaut get some required cash.
Probably the real solution is to say you get a fair price for every copy sold? Nice and simple that, no bonus for meeting targets, just an extra cheque for every 100,000 units. But then the developers are at the behest of a marketing team.
I don't think we'll have this problem in 10 years anyway because publishers are becoming dinosaurs, crowdsourcing appears to be a viable future and then developers get all the money.
There was an example of Alien Resurrection Edge mentioned. Fox were furious about how the game tanked, but it got such high reviews that it helped Argonaut get some required cash.
Probably the real solution is to say you get a fair price for every copy sold? Nice and simple that, no bonus for meeting targets, just an extra cheque for every 100,000 units. But then the developers are at the behest of a marketing team.
I don't think we'll have this problem in 10 years anyway because publishers are becoming dinosaurs, crowdsourcing appears to be a viable future and then developers get all the money.
The sites claim that people want scores, and just give into their readers.
Canis lupus
Member
The game journalists lost their credibility with their 10s on GTA4 anyways, you shouldnt care much about reviews.
I agree, a site of IGN's size should take a stand but they will never do that, especially if it may compromise them getting early review copies or whatever. Most gaming sites aspire to be on Metacritic because it grants them better odds of early review code. Integrity doesn't exist anymore, if ever, for this industry.
For the record I agree with you, but I still think that when you release something first you get a bit of slack. By the time Obsidian released New Vegas they had had an extra 2 or so years to perfect or at least improve the engine Bethesda created but that didn't happen. I can see why in this instance they might be more flack for it whereas criticism for Bethesda is a bit more lax. However, they (Bethesda) did get grilled pretty badly over Skyrim's bugs, particularly their broken PS3 version.
We already know two major gaming outlets that got themselves delisted from Metacritic, and GAF doesn't think too highly of any of them... why would IGN bother getting itself delisted, when it knows its reputation among forum dwellers that frequent GAF and System Wars isn't going to change?
Stealth20k
Banned
the industry was ruined before it
GTAV will bring gaming journalism to a whole another level, calling it
Can't wait for those incredible out-of-this-world one-liners that will come
Bingo
Anyway, I love metacritic just because crowd sourcing the scores results in a much more accurate depiction of the quality of the game than relying on a single site like IGN whose scores are biased/bought/unreliable/unprofessional. If there were more trustworthy review sites out there then metacritic would not be necessary.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
No. IGN is.
CookedChocobo
Member
I mean, it does spot out the obviously shitty games and good games....the point of it.
But isn't it hypocritical of IGN to complain when it only has one person doing game reviews of each game, so only one opinion is being regarded to the game score instead of several?
But isn't it hypocritical of IGN to complain when it only has one person doing game reviews of each game, so only one opinion is being regarded to the game score instead of several?
SolidSnakex
Member
That's why the whole average is a mess. But I doubt that it's going to stop any time soon.
The story behind the GTA4 reviews is one of the best example of how messed up the industry is when it comes to that area. What's even more messed up is that those reviewers didn't inform their readers about what Rockstar did.
EmCeeGramr
Member
Bethesda got grilled after players got their hands on the final game - and noticeably, after Skyrim got tremendous critical acclaim glossing over or deemphasizing its bugs.
I don't have a very high opinion of games journalism, and I feel the cross-pollination of game promotion and game reviews makes the entire system completely unreliable.
I think you pose an interesting question, and give an interesting answer, too. I think that bonuses should be determined on a case-by-case basis. I think that the "number of bugs" upon release and meeting the ship dates are great criteria for evaluation (as patches cost both time and money of the developer and publisher). Metacritic can be used to assist in the assessment, but it shouldn't be relied upon. I feel that it alone should not be the determining factor in whether or not someone gets a bonus.
I think something is inherently wrong with the system if a developer gets a bonus at a Metacritic score of 85 and not 84.
Really? Because the Metacritic rating for Skyrim on PS3 is 92. Pretty high for a nigh unplayable build.
Hobbestetrician
Member
This doesn't seem to be Metacritic's issue but rather how publishers use Metacritic. Metacritic didn't decide that an 85 for New Vegas (which, granted, should have gotten higher reviews in my opinion) would result in bonuses for the developers.
So shouldn't it be 'Games Industry Using Metacritic to Ruin Games Industry'?
So shouldn't it be 'Games Industry Using Metacritic to Ruin Games Industry'?
Lord_Byron28
Member
I said that GAF/Uncharted fans reaction was embarassing so obviously I don't think it's a bad score. That's part of my point is that some people decide that they only buy games on a certain level. If someone is on the fence on a product they will look up Metacritic and see the average number. My point is that there is some truth to this article when product's sales and developer's livelihood is at stake. Although I think there are many other factors than just Metacritic as to why a game sells well or bad. There are plenty of trash games that sold incredibly well such as Just Dance or Resident Evil Operation Raccoon City.
GalacticSushiman
Member
Can someone tell me the difference it makes to try and create the best game experience possible and try and get the highest metacritic score? Aren't both, like exactly the same?
Of course, there is PR, there is exclusive reviews, there is how you present everything, but, on the long run, metacritic just aggregates tons of reviews post launch, and the magic number, even if a bit stupid because it's JUST one number, tends to represent the average "perception of quality" gamers will also have playing the game.
And, to say that this perception of quality is dangerously important in the video game industry is just stating the obvious. Yes it is, and it has nothing to do with metacritic, it has everything to do with pricing. MC does not have the same weight in cinema and music, because an album and a theater ticket costs 6 times less... When you can only affort so much, you only want quality, simple.
Of course, there is PR, there is exclusive reviews, there is how you present everything, but, on the long run, metacritic just aggregates tons of reviews post launch, and the magic number, even if a bit stupid because it's JUST one number, tends to represent the average "perception of quality" gamers will also have playing the game.
And, to say that this perception of quality is dangerously important in the video game industry is just stating the obvious. Yes it is, and it has nothing to do with metacritic, it has everything to do with pricing. MC does not have the same weight in cinema and music, because an album and a theater ticket costs 6 times less... When you can only affort so much, you only want quality, simple.
This is exactly like most of the gamers I know use Metacritic game scores. Movie scores BTW are lower averaged at least by 10/15 points.
whalleywhat
Member
"Guns don't kill people..." Even if the tool is abused by publishers, why is review aggregation necessary at all? Generally all a high Metacritic score tells me as a consumer is "This is a AAA game which had a lot of money spent on it." A good written review, some gameplay videos or a demo should tell you far more about a game than some arbitrary number. Metacritic is only useful in that it links to sites which I wouldn't normally read.
Silly.Mikey
Banned
The fact that some companies bonuses are based on the metacritic score to me says yes, its ruining the industry.
Lets make this quick:
1) Anything under a 90 metacritic is shit in the eyes of Publishers because there is a lot of correlation between low 90's and higher having better sales (on average).
2) Sales and ratings are not acceptable methods of managing payments to developers. Profits is what matters.
You can have an insanely expensive dev cycle that fails to recover costs despite selling larger numbers of units. You can have cheap and quick dev cycles that are profitable without pushing COD numbers. If a game like New Vegas makes money, the developers deserve to see a part of it regardless of what the media thinks. Consumers vote with their dollars, who gives a shit what the press thinks?
EDIT:
And I don't give a shit about what else is on IGN, but the PSP licking picture is fucking gold.
1) Anything under a 90 metacritic is shit in the eyes of Publishers because there is a lot of correlation between low 90's and higher having better sales (on average).
2) Sales and ratings are not acceptable methods of managing payments to developers. Profits is what matters.
You can have an insanely expensive dev cycle that fails to recover costs despite selling larger numbers of units. You can have cheap and quick dev cycles that are profitable without pushing COD numbers. If a game like New Vegas makes money, the developers deserve to see a part of it regardless of what the media thinks. Consumers vote with their dollars, who gives a shit what the press thinks?
EDIT:
And I don't give a shit about what else is on IGN, but the PSP licking picture is fucking gold.
It's necessary because it allows you to scope out different point of views easier.And if i had that mindset i would of never bought Demon's Souls an AAA game in my eyes with no marketing.
It's not bad, but in the gaming industry 8/10 isn't special either. And frankly, the way gaming journalists are, 6/10 is the equivalent of an F.
And that's wrong. It shouldn't be that way, but even if a site, like Edge, reviews using the full 0-10 scale, no one will look at it the correct way. If scores are to stay, what is the best way to grade them?
Obviously, the context of the review should paint a clear picture of the game, but since people don't read and jump to see the scores, what can be done to change things.....
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Too many awesome games in the 70-89 range for me to care about Metacritic.
Yes. But to be fair, the entire videogame press is killing the industry. Scores don't mean anything anymore, anything with a solid market campaign behind gets a 9+ and anything under 8,5 is treated like shit.
Obsidian didn't get any profit from NV because of some stupid metacritic agreement with Bethesda.
Obsidian didn't get any profit from NV because of some stupid metacritic agreement with Bethesda.
SolidSnakex
Member
As others have said, Bethesda got off pretty easy for Skyrim. Many major sites barely ran any articles on it other than when Bethesda would release a comment about an upcoming patch. And then you had ridiculous stuff like this
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=33536812&postcount=1436
Giant Bomb apparently had a similar stance.
Canis lupus
Member
I remember Gamespot put a 95, but then quickly changed to 10. Those years were really controversial, also the Kane&Lynch review getting someone fired.
Metacritic converts a D- to a 16 and a 1 star out of 4 to a 25. If you use a straight 1-10 scale, a 6.0 is a 60, whereas that would be somewhere between a C+ and a B- on the 10-point scale. It's pretty jacked-up, since I'm sure a lot of letter-grade reviews are written with the mindset that a D- should be around 60/100, not 16/100.
Clearly not Metacritic's fault, but the fault of the executives who base the payment on what the metacritic score is. Metacritic doesn't ruin the gaming industry directly and IGN doesn't either (I read that sometimes here, so I guess some executives did the same thing they did with Metacritic scores?). In fact, the industry isn't ruined for now, I don't see a crash here.
Which is the reason that just buying games that have a score of 90 or more is simply idiotic. I bought games even though I know that they have a score of 60 or 70.
Which is the reason that just buying games that have a score of 90 or more is simply idiotic. I bought games even though I know that they have a score of 60 or 70.