This is a response from Forbes to Kotaku, for the "Nintendo really likes Metacritic" article. Paul Tassi is very critical so his opinion is kinda valid, imho... he wrote the "Ubisoft is the new EA" article. So now this is a websites war, who will win? find out on the next... ok ok.

btw, nice to meet you, this is my first thread :)

kotaku: http://kotaku.com/nintendo-really-likes-metacritic-1686254849

forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2015/02/18/why-is-nintendo-wrong-to-be-proud-of-their-metacritic-scores/

Who wouldn't be proud the general consensus of critics liked your game?

EDIT: "In short, Nintendo games are better than Sony or Microsoft games, because Metacritic said so. Or something."
Er... no, the reviewers said so, Metacritic is just a place where those scores are averaged.

Also, well done on the new thread. I've been here years, only made 3.

I see nothing wrong with it, but their inclusion of user scores always makes me chuckle. I don't think they (or at least, someone on their marketing team) actually know how frequently those scores are manipulated in mass though, especially on the PS4, X1 and PC titles. The huge user score variations we often see between some sites (such as meta vs imdb) should highlight that.

Also, congrats on your first thread ^^

They should be proud of it; Nintendo have utterly failed to toot their own horn in the past and it has not worked out well for them.

I think that both have some valid opinions, but kotaku is a little childish expressing their opinion.

Its fine to say you have the best games, even if its obvious how skewed the rules to making said list was biased towards Nintendo. But they have to keep up the good games and I also doubt investors care about how well reviewed a game is. Im sure any investor would much prefer to be investing in Destiny than Bayonetta.

What Nintendo is saying: "Our products are generally considered, by critics and consumers, to be consistently good". That's not a bad thing to be saying.

Yes, Metacritic has a few methodological short comings, and there is a political issue of how it is used by the industry. But I can't see why Nintendo pointing to it as evidence that they're games are generally held in high regard is a bad thing.

I think it's funny though. Kotaku are generally fairly biased against Nintendo, whereas I don't think I've ever seen a negative article on them in Forbes. I think it's because they get such good quotes and headlines out of Reggie.

I'd almost not be surprised if Nintendo eventually finds itself nearly entirely invested in by its fans someday...

They're not in the wrong. People just love to hate, especially when it comes to Nintendo.

The problem is not the critic scores but the user scores they are using. Which are only higher than other AAA releases because of specific circumstances. You can be proud that critics like your games but just having less haters on the internet is no achievement of their own.