brucewaynegretzky
Member
Isn't metascore really closely correlated with sales?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
IGN: Is Metacritic Ruining The Games Industry?
- Thread starter pramath
- Start date
Serious question because I didn't play the game but do you think they really deserved it?
It's all I use it for. I went to IGN's 360 page just to see what it was like and you're right. There was no way to see reviews from there - it's just a link on the top to a catch-all reviews page.
As for the topic, what does it really matter if publishers use Metacritic average? If they didn't use that, they'd use some other metric like sales and those are - at times - equally mysterious.
This.
Most of them couldn´t do a halfway impartial review if their life depended on it.
Games that hit 90+ tend to have higher total sales numbers, but that means nothing in terms of profitability. At some point publishers have to give up on all games bringing in COD money.
schwabdizzle
Banned
Metacritic isn't ruining gaming....trolling articles and paid reviews are.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Ok, then different question. Would it be better if publishers started writing contingency clauses based on sales rather than metascore?
Gotta remember that designers are negotiating these contracts too.
It's such an arbitrary, unscientific method to base multi-million dollar decisions on. Blows my mind.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Forget Bobby Kotck - John Davison is the most powerful person in the video game business. He is in charge of both Gamespot and Metacritic. That's a huge amount of influence on both sides of the industry.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Forget Bobby Kotck - John Davison is the most powerful person in the video game business. He is in charge of both Gamespot and Metacritic. That's a huge amount of influence on both sides of the industry.
SMT
this show is not Breaking Bad why is it not Breaking Bad? it should be Breaking Bad dammit Breaking Bad
Most of the producers out there look at Metacritic as the authority on games, some of them even quote what their works achieved on there, whether it be negative or positive.
Maybe it helps their games improve in the long-haul, but it proves that some of them lack confidence when composing their pieces.
Could it be that Metacritic is holding back publishers from experimenting with new ideas?
Maybe it helps their games improve in the long-haul, but it proves that some of them lack confidence when composing their pieces.
Could it be that Metacritic is holding back publishers from experimenting with new ideas?
More Fun To Compute
Member
More like sales are closely correlated with the success of the marketing message. And also scores are for some reason closely correlated with the success of marketing.
Yup. I use Metacritic every time I buy a game. If the game is hanging at an 80, I have a pretty good indication it's going to be decent. If it's a bit lower, then I do some more investigation. I have yet to be disappointed in over 6 years or so. And for those that claim Metacritic is garbage or useless, which games do you completely disagree with their rating (huge difference, not 90 to 80...something like 90 to 70) or what games do you think deserve to be better rated? I always enjoy finding diamonds in the rough, but almost 100% of the time, the game deserves its score.
Gaylord Sweetwood
Member
If I ever go to Metacritic it's to look at user reviews. After seeing Game Journalists whoring themselves out to Blizzard with Diablo 3 (an inherently flawed game) they lost pretty much all credibility with me.
The Wizard
Member
I would prefer a rottentomatoes type system where a games score is the percentage of reviewers who liked it and the actual average rating number is given less attention. Also the choice to filter by top critics, or maybe publications I decide I usually agree with would be nice.
SolidSnakex
Member
Mirror's Edge (79) and Alice: Madness Returns (70). Mirror's Edge may be my favorite game of this generation and Alice is a fantastic platformer/adventure game. Binary Domain (74) would be another. It probably has the best gunplay and boss fights in a third person shooter this gen.
Incidentally. Scores and sales both correlate strongly with marketing budget. Both being effects of the same cause does not mean they impact each other.
I would never use metacritic for user reviews because it;s either 10s or 1s bec ause of fanboy nonsense.Anyone remember the GoW/LBP fanboy metacritic war?
Cyber Caesar
Member
This article should really be about the media's ability to shape public perception. If game companies wouldn't place so much value on Metacritic, I don't think gamers would care so much either.
Who wrote that ethics rule book that said reviewers who have grown tired of reviewing FPSs shouldn't review the new Call of Duty? These review scores are totally subjective. Who thought it would be a good idea to tie people's wages to this?
Who wrote that ethics rule book that said reviewers who have grown tired of reviewing FPSs shouldn't review the new Call of Duty? These review scores are totally subjective. Who thought it would be a good idea to tie people's wages to this?
And all of the above correlates with the overall quality of the game... No one indicator is perfect but they are all closely linked to each other.
Keavy_Rain
Member
I played Dragon Age 2 during the backlash phase, when people were saying "$15 is too much for this game" and I went into it knowing I wasn't getting Dragon Age: Origins part 2. I played it, I made my way to the end, but I certainly won't play it ever again.
Also, I think it's unfair to knock a game because of bugs. I played through New Vegas in spite of crashes and freezing because the story was so good and the gameplay was fantastic. The game succeeded in spite of its flawed engine.
One game I like to bring up in score discussions is Borderlands. For me, it's a 6/10. Slightly above average, but I've played that game quite a bit over the past couple years. It's almost like I'm addicted to the game in spite of it being so incredibly average and uninspired.
As for Borderlands 2, I'm psyched because Borderlands had a lot of flaws that held it back but the one thing it needed above all else was a good writer and Anthony Burch proved himself with the Claptrap DLC.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Except IGN contributes to the problem. If they don't like what's happening to the industry, then stop putting scores on the reviews. Just write a review and make people read the words. It's not as easy but we can make things a lot easier. For everytime they put scores on each part of a game (gameplay, graphics, sound), they contribute to the problem.
Scores and quality are completely independent. Sales are linked slightly (long tail only, irrelevant at launch). Marketing money is everything.
That's nonsense.
If they did that the readership/hits per page would drop.
Unlike movies, where critics are actual critics... That would just give more power to publishers and the select sites like Gamespot, 1up, and IGN. Same sites where you know the only problem with a game is. Which journalist to shoe horn into it.
Metacritic is not the problem, well it is for IGN since it completely side steps their source of revenue. The problem is that everything aligns perfectly. Gamers have minute like memory, hype cycles that just go on to the next big thing, the shinny new product is the best. Follow it up with reviewers coming from exactly these pool of people and their source of review is advertisements... mostly from publishers. Who can either strong arm or bribe said reviewers, but its not like they even need to do that.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Mirror's Edge is an excellent game, but it also has issues stemming from its core design. It was designed to be a replayable, time attack game--but this is an ancillary mode to a 5 hour setpiece based campaign game. The gunplay and combat is poor. And the plot is presented through poor and jarring cutscenes. There's a difference between "I love this game, it is my favourite game of the generation" and "I think every critic should have given it a 10". It's pretty obvious how there were factors working against it.
Alice, from what I've played, is quite good. But it also runs a little long, feels fairly samey during the period of time I've played, has no real puzzles, has pretty standard and not particularly satisfying combat. Again, this is not me saying it's a bad game, but it's me saying I absolutely understand why it doesn't have 10/10 reviews.
Deadly Premonition is one of my favourite games this generation because of its heart, characterization, strong world building, sense of home, pace, and humour. On the other hand, it's ugly as hell, has janky combat, it's more farce than horror, the twisted near the end get stupid, the tutorial / opening level plays to the game's weaknesses. Some reviewers are willing to give titles a 10 in spite of their flaws, some reviewers look at things more holistically, but many feel their audiences are best served by deconstructing a game into its constituent parts, and when you deconstruct Deadly Premonition, you're left with a mixed bag.
Everything I'm saying here should be pretty obvious. I'm not sure why people trot out their favourite game and are surprised when it doesn't have a universally positive reception. Universally positive receptions are for games that are exceedingly polished, high profile, high production values, that don't alienate anyone. Games that are provocative or take chances at the expense of their potential audience size are going to be a little more divisive. That's okay. The games you love don't need to be all 95
brucewaynegretzky
Member
This can't be entirely true. Games like Brutal Legend and Too Human had relatively large marketing budgets, no? There are also plenty of shit "bro" games that get big time ad space during sporting events that don't sell well.
I think you're understating the effect of quality on sales.
This was my reaction immediately. Metacritic has made IGN irrelevant to most people. GAF made IGN and every other news site irrelevant to me 10+ years ago but I do go to metacritic with relative frequency to check on reviews across all their sections.
Boss Man
Member
It's not totally correct, but it isn't nonsense. Game reviews have been nearly meaningless for quite some time. It's nothing but hype.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Count me down for this even if there is the grey area of meh didn't like it but didn't really dislike it either. I still think the RT system would be better.
Live Free or Die
Banned
In my opinion. Any site that uses any type of rating is ruining the games industry.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
BTW can't review sites just copyright their info, and not allow metacritic to use their scores?
CamHostage
Member
Nope.
https://metacritic.custhelp.com/app...2LzIvdGltZS8xMzEyMTU3ODU5L3NpZC9ETTgqTG9Baw==
So, even if reviewers dropped the scores, MetaCritic would assign a score.
BTW, individual scores (or trophies, as some sites do) don't factor in at all to the MetaScore or to the publisher payment system. I've never heard of a foley artist or composer get cut his bonus because his audio work wasn't given high marks. If these scores were ever aggregated, maybe that'd happen, but the fact that they aren't kind of points to the problem of taking quality scores and aggregating them, because they're not considered important they're kind of nice to look at and fun to compare high marks and low marks (I used to back as a kid like to look at GamePro's stream of faces) but if any company started taking notice of those scores, the abuse of what's supposed to just be something for readers to dig on and take what they will from suddenly becomes an issue for the industry.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
The real problem posed by metascores is that they pose a thorny problem for developers.
Look at it this way: publishers want to make money, which means they want EVERYONE possible to buy the game. A universally positive critical reception is a solid validation that the product was of sufficient quality to attain this. From their standpoint its not an unreasonable ask because the simple truth is that especially if you aren't selling off the back of a pre-existing popular license or franchise (which costs them) you really do need a push from the enthusiast press to stand a chance. Make no bones about it, critical acclaim = free advertising.
Metascoring gives them a metric with which they can enforce their will on a contractual basis.
The developer cannot really argue with a premise that says basically "if everyone loves the game" we'll pay you more, but the reality is that it's just a stick with which to keep them on the (presumed most lucrative) creative safe straight-and-narrow.
What it means in the end though is that anything radical or divisive that's somehow slipped through during the commissioning process, has a much higher probability of being weeded-out during development proper, as it strongly encourages the developer to consider the economic imperative throughout the creative process.
To a businessman the product that sells well is the goal, quality = mass acceptance. That's what they are striving for because from their standpoint the bottom-line is the only thing that matters, metacritic based bonuses force creatives into the same line-of-thinking.
Where things go awry is that although metascores are presented to developers as a meritocratic goal they should aspire to, in the end its less about quality than popularity. Two things that are not interchangable in an artistic/aesthetic sense only in terms of financial returns to their backers.
Look at it this way: publishers want to make money, which means they want EVERYONE possible to buy the game. A universally positive critical reception is a solid validation that the product was of sufficient quality to attain this. From their standpoint its not an unreasonable ask because the simple truth is that especially if you aren't selling off the back of a pre-existing popular license or franchise (which costs them) you really do need a push from the enthusiast press to stand a chance. Make no bones about it, critical acclaim = free advertising.
Metascoring gives them a metric with which they can enforce their will on a contractual basis.
The developer cannot really argue with a premise that says basically "if everyone loves the game" we'll pay you more, but the reality is that it's just a stick with which to keep them on the (presumed most lucrative) creative safe straight-and-narrow.
What it means in the end though is that anything radical or divisive that's somehow slipped through during the commissioning process, has a much higher probability of being weeded-out during development proper, as it strongly encourages the developer to consider the economic imperative throughout the creative process.
To a businessman the product that sells well is the goal, quality = mass acceptance. That's what they are striving for because from their standpoint the bottom-line is the only thing that matters, metacritic based bonuses force creatives into the same line-of-thinking.
Where things go awry is that although metascores are presented to developers as a meritocratic goal they should aspire to, in the end its less about quality than popularity. Two things that are not interchangable in an artistic/aesthetic sense only in terms of financial returns to their backers.
Gaylord Sweetwood
Member
It's not hard to discern fanboy/rage reviews. Even going as far back as Gamefaqs user reviews in the late 90s/early 2000s, I think you can find some good information that the "professional" reviewers leave out or miss.
More Fun To Compute
Member
Ugh, ultimately how do we decide the criteria on how to judge if a game is of high quality or not. Like, is this game a good or bad example of what?
Now take the recent game Quantum Conundrum because it had terrible marketing. If we know two things about it then we know it was by the creator of Portal and had voice acting by Q from Star Trek. Except the production wasn't up to the budget, presentation and accessibility of Portal 2 and the voice acting was very hit or miss. They made a rod for their own backs.
CamHostage
Member
Nope.
I went into detail earlier, but sites typically don't ask to be on MetaCritic and probably would not be heard if they requested to be off MetaCritic (not that I believe many want to, though there was some fight against GameRankings once upon a time.) I don't see anything about removing a site from the MetaCritic About Page and didn't see any search results in their FAQ either (maybe somebody else can find it?)
MetaCritic is an editorially-driven site, with user contributions and automated feed injects doing the work, not individual critics or webmasters (though the reviewer could also be the contributor.) And as far as copyright, what MetaCritic uses of sites falls into fair use: it's a link, a small quotation, and a number (all with proper attribution,) I'm not sure what good a cease-and-desist letter would do with so little material appropriated from the source.
SolidSnakex
Member
Many of the reviews didn't focus on the things that you brought up. It was often criticized because the platforming was very unforgiving. You had to be precise because Faith didn't have the ability to float a few extra feet or double jump like many platformers do now. It was very old-school 2D in its approach. You either line the jump up and time it perfectly or you die. It's that simple.
With all of the complaints about hand holding in games now and the general lack of difficulty. It's kind of amazing that ME was criticized the way it was. Yeah, the combat wasn't great, but for the most part it was very avoidable. There were only a handful of instances where you really needed to fight. I just think that the quality of platforming and level design in the game should've been able to elevate it higher because the combat was such a small part of the game.
I'm not even asking for them to receive 10's or 9's. I think ME should been in the mid-high 80's while Alice should've been in the low 80's. Neither of them are perfect, but I also don't think that they're what those reviews paint them as. I think the biggest problem that they have is that they generally lack the polish of the usual AAA titles. But their core gameplay is quite a bit better than those games.
Doctor Decimate
Member
there are better places to look than metacritic
Graphics Horse
Member
Indeed. What Metacritic can learn from IGN review scores.
Who actually uses Metacritic for ideas on what to buy? I don't think I've seen it for 5 years.
edit: or IGN reviews for that matter.
It's been pretty well established that publishers are using aggregators like Metacritic to judge a game's success beyond the number of copies shipped. Metascore is used to determine bonuses, if sequels will be made, and presumably whether or not to break up a team or a studio.
When Activision's contract with Bungie got disclosed as part of the Infinity Ward case it was noted that there were conditions dependent on metascores (Gamerankings, specifically.)
Personally, I don't care much about the metascores. But I'll go to the aggregator sites so I can quickly check multiple reviews of a game.
Graphics Horse
Member
Oh yeah I know about that, I think it's shameful.
I edit my post to clarify what I meant, if people use it as a useful review hub, fair enough.
SEGAvangelist
Member
Rotten Tomatoes style needs to happen ASAP. Those numbers mean nothing with different review scales messing things up. 2.5 of 5 should equal 5 out of 10... but it never does.