By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Best indictment on review scores yet.

From Edge:http://www.edge-online.com/features/why-metacritic-doesnt-matter

Why Metacritic Doesn't Matter

There is a prevailing theory that review scores affect sales. It is certainly true that there is a high correlation between aggregate review ratings, like those found on Metacritic.com, and sales; games rated over 90 percent tend to record higher game sales than their lower scoring peers. The question that was posed to the developer panel at DICE Summit 2009 was whether they designed games with reviewers in mind. The answer was an overwhelming no. [Emhpasis in original]

"The first person you have to design for is yourself," says Danny Bilson, creative director at THQ. He acknowledges that Metacritic is a powerful force. He's found that he can game Metacritic by improving what he calls "linear assets" that don't affect the actual code, which the team spends most of their time writing. By that he means offering up a better story, better voice acting, and better music. Reviewers have to write, says Bilson, so give them something to write about. By paying attention to such things, you can gain a five to ten point bump because in Bilson's eyes game reviewers care more about story than consumers.

The consensus among panelists was review scores in and of themselves don't matter. Fingers pointed to the success of games like Wii Fit that scored in the 60 percent range. Reviews of such games just aren't relevant to their audience, says Rich Hilleman, chief creative director at Electronic Arts. Social gamers are not the people who are going to be reading hardcore game magazines.

No, the issue isn't the impact of the score on sales, it is how your company uses them, says THQ's Bilson. They are either a touchstone or they are a weapon. Companies use Metacritic scores to project game sales. When teams pitch a game, they're asked to estimate the score. Why would a development team ever shoot for anything less than 100 percent, he asks. The problem is that these projected scores determine game budgets and marketing spends.

Metacritic scores are trailing indicators. Chris Taylor, chief executive of Gas Powered Games, doesn't need a Metacritic score. He knows if he put out a "shitty game." Developers get that information from retail, he says. If it sells well it was good, if it didn't it was bad.

The worst part about these reviews, says Mona Hamilton, SVP of marketing at Capcom, is they are suggestive--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event. [Emphasis added here]

Another problem with Metacritic scores, says Bilson, is they aren't weighted. Reviews from Time Magazine are treated the same as some kid's blog. A low score from a "couple weird sites" can significantly drag down average review scores. [Metacritic's website actually notes that scores are weighted. Thanks to readers for pointing this out.]

Hilleman suggests that game developers don't need Metacritic at all. With telemetric data, they can see what is wrong with all of their products--the answers are in the data. Community, he says, is the most important thing.

Besides, says Bilson, "How can you put a number on art?"

(The picture in the article shows Wii games -- imagine that).

 

Mike from Morgantown



      


I am Mario.


I like to jump around, and would lead a fairly serene and aimless existence if it weren't for my friends always getting into trouble. I love to help out, even when it puts me at risk. I seem to make friends with people who just can't stay out of trouble.

Wii Friend Code: 1624 6601 1126 1492

NNID: Mike_INTV

Around the Network

 
mike_intellivision said:

Hilleman suggests that game developers don't need Metacritic at all.

 

 They're just now figuring this out? Yeesh.



Very interesting. I'd say they do matter, cause informed buyers check reviews before investing in their games. The thing is, sometimes the user's average is a better information source, cause it tells you whether regular people who actually played the game had fun with it or not.



Wii Fit has an 80 on Metacritic last time I checked...that's pretty high...



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Dante G said:
Very interesting. I'd say they do matter, cause informed buyers check reviews before investing in their games. The thing is, sometimes the user's average is a better information source, cause it tells you whether regular people who actually played the game had fun with it or not.

Not on Metacritic it doesn't.

@Kantor: How about Wii Music? Or Wii Play? How does Mario Kart Wii stack up to previous installments? And so on.



Around the Network

They're absolutely right, if the game sells well, it did it's job. If it didn't sell it's a bad game.



"Pier was a chef, a gifted and respected chef who made millions selling his dishes to the residents of New York City and Boston, he even had a famous jingle playing in those cities that everyone knew by heart. He also had a restaurant in Los Angeles, but not expecting LA to have such a massive population he only used his name on that restaurant and left it to his least capable and cheapest chefs. While his New York restaurant sold kobe beef for $100 and his Boston restaurant sold lobster for $50, his LA restaurant sold cheap hotdogs for $30. Initially these hot dogs sold fairly well because residents of los angeles were starving for good food and hoped that the famous name would denote a high quality, but most were disappointed with what they ate. Seeing the success of his cheap hot dogs in LA, Pier thought "why bother giving Los Angeles quality meats when I can oversell them on cheap hotdogs forever, and since I don't care about the product anyways, why bother advertising them? So Pier continued to only sell cheap hotdogs in LA and was surprised to see that they no longer sold. Pier's conclusion? Residents of Los Angeles don't like food."

"The so-called "hardcore" gamer is a marketing brainwashed, innovation shunting, self-righteous idiot who pays videogame makers far too much money than what is delivered."

griffinA said:
They're absolutely right, if the game sells well, it did it's job. If it didn't sell it's a bad game.

No that is not the case what the devil are you talking about



The worst part about these reviews, says Mona Hamilton, SVP of marketing at Capcom, is they are suggestive--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event. [Emphasis added here]

 

Holy crap, is that ever sig-worthy. I think she meant to say 'subjective' instead of 'suggestive,' though.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

RolStoppable said:
An important thing to note is that most games that receive an average score of 90 or higher are usually also among the most heavily marketed ones, so I would say that the correlation between review scores and sales is overrated.

I like the comments from developers in this article. Reviewers can be easily manipulated.

I hope the last line from Bilson was just a joke.

So this is the reason why Okami and World of Goo are up there.....



Anything to knock Metacritics and Gamerankings overemphasized importance down a few pegs is OK by me.

And that quote is quite excellent.



Warning: The preceding message may or may not have included sarcasm, cynicism, irony, full stops, commas, slashes, words, letters, sentences, lines, quotes,  flaeed  gramar, cryptic metaphors or other means of annoying communication. Viewer discretion is/was strongly advised.