http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/941947.asp

Category: Sports, Traditional, Football, Arcade Play football a whole new way with NFL Tour. Take on the league's top players in rock festival type atmospheres under the night skies of America's hottest cities and make a name for yourself in seven-on-seven football. Hold your own against the league's elite and you might earn a spot on an NFL roster.   Visit the NFL Tour Forum RANKINGS RATIO / USER Overall Ranking: -- -- X360 Ranking: -- -- All 2008 Releases: -- -- X360 2008 Releases: -- --  Screenshots    View 48 Screenshots >>

Featured Articles - 15 On File Average Ratio: 41.8% - (46.1%) Only Sites in Bold Count towards the Average Ratio Site Name / Link Quality Date Rating Ratio   GameSpy   1/14/2008 2 out of 5 40.0%   GameSpot   1/14/2008 5 out of 10 50.0%   IGN   1/10/2008 4.7 out of 10 47.0%   Electronic Gaming Monthly   2/1/2008 3.5 out of 10 35.0%   Game Informer   2/1/2008 5 out of 10 50.0%   TeamXbox   1/9/2008 4.5 out of 10 45.0%   GameShark   1/14/2008 F 5.0%   Cheat Code Central   1/12/2008 3.7 out of 5 74.0%   1UP   1/8/2008 3 out of 10 30.0%   The Onion   1/14/2008 D 50.0%   Add a New Article Link   (Worth 250 Points) View all 15 Articles >>

This is just an example as I am sure there are many others.  Did the devs really not see this coming?  Aren't there focus groups or testing before a game comes out?  Maybe the reviews are the problem? is there anything the devs can do about this?  Here we are 2008 and we still get games under 50% average from a series that used to be good (around 80% average).  

 If I was a developer I add in to my schedule time for reviewers to get a crack at the game months before release just to get an idea what the reviews may be.  I mean don't have to shoot for a AAA game but at least hit 70% or something higher then 50%.  For the most part high reviews games sell well and lowered reviewed ones don't though there are exceptions here and there.  I think is a safer bet to try to get a high review then hoping to be the exception.  What do people think?

1. Yes, developers generally know when they aren't making a good game but as long as the game should make money or at least recoup a good amount of the money spent on it it will proably get released.
2. Even bad games generally get focused tested and hopefully the developers will adress all the issues or as many as possible.
3. A month wouldn't be enough time to raise a game from a 50% to an 80%. It probably wouldn't even be enough time to raise it to even a %60.

EA focus group: It sucked. Can it.
EA: But it's the NFL.
EA focus group: Nobody liked Head Coach either.
EA: But it's the NFL.
EA focus group: Madden 08 what was the worst Madden in a decade.
EA: But it's the NFL.

@twesterm

1. Crazy that developers would know they are working on a crappy game. I see what your saying though especially when it is an established franshise they may recoup the money regardless of quality.

3. A month was an example and more about giving the reviewers a month to check out the game. Then spend the required time needed to tweak the game. I mean alot of the bad games typically have the same issues brought up so you can just try to work on as many as you can so that they are brought up and bring the score down.

Who knows maybe some games are just going to be bad regardless of anything and will be released. I guess as long as they are far and between is not a big issue.

In any form of software development you can be fully aware that you're producing crap but because of budget limitations, management structure, and development approach you are often unable to do anything about it ...

Good developers consistently produce good games because the company is well set up to ensure quality titles are produced; similarly, poor developers consistently produce poor games because the company is set up to ensure poor quality titles are produced.

Think of it this way. You have a bad game that you've made, and you know it's made. All of the development costs you've put into it are already sunk. Do you:

1) Cut your losses and release the game as is and recoup some sales from people who don't read reviews, etc.

2) Start over and completely revamp the game and risk it not even ending up any better on the hope that sales will increase a bit

3) Can it completely and don't even release it.

Usually #1 is the most profitable path unfortunately, with maybe a small amount of #2 for polishing/bug fixing if it's deemed worth it.

Heh judging from that table I know never to trust Cheat Code Central's reviews.

I think every developer should be forced to sit and play their game for 12 hours straight before releasing it.

I also think at least 3 representatives from the publisher should as well.

Perhaps it like parents that can't see how naughty their kids are.