EA bests Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo in Metacritic's publisher rankings, with Take-Two taking top honors in mid-sized publisher list.
Couldn't help but lol at Activision's results. Not a single original game in 2012...
Yea the best original title part cracked me up too :D
EA has money and people like money.
LOL, whatever...it wasn't that long ago EA was voted the worst company in America (of which I agree).
You agree that EA is the worst company in America? Ahead of companies like Monsanto and Bank of America? Shows how much gamers like you know.
Ooooh he got you good
*cough* AIG *cough*
You do realize that not every person has had a negative experience with Monsanto or Bank of America, right? It is also very possible that those same people DID have a bad experience with EA, or even multiple ones. A person considering EA to be the worst company in America is just as valid as you considering either of the others due to the differing personal experiences. In other words, think the "why" part out before insinuating gamers are uneducated or don't know anything about these sorts of things.
Yep, voted worst by online trolls. There's some meaningful results for you. You might as well have called it the "Metacritic User Awards" as it was just about as meaningful. As long as EA keeps making games I want to play, I'll keep playing them.
There is no doubt that EA are behind some of the most enjoyable experiences this gen. From popular games like Mass Effect, its sport franchises and Battlefield to racing games like Burnout and the reboot of Need for speed. Dead Space was a total shock and 1 & 2 turned out to be fantastic games. Also they have had some sleeper hits like Mirrors Edge and Reckoning. Now I may not always agree with their business practices... heck as of late I can't tolerate EA... but there is no denying there are quite a few great games out there right now tied to EA this generation.
Not surprised, Metacritic is about as reliable as my stool for accurate depictions of a video game's worth. Can't see why it'd be any more accurate with video game publishers.
I found them to be somewhat reliable. I mean, surely you can give or take with any score, but generally speaking the good games with a green tab next to them and are rated near 80 and above are probably worth playing to fans of the genres and the games that dip in to the 70's and lower and are shown with barely with green tabs, yellow tabs and red tabs are probably not worth your time. Of course you take it with a grain of salt, but I find metacritic highly reliable (for me personally) when deciding what game to try. If I don't like the game it is usually because of bad taste on my part.
Once metacritic starts using internet traffic statistics to filter out the no name hit piece reviews (giving games a 4 or 5 for the sake of hits) then it might be useful. I think Metacritic should only use the top 50 gaming sites based on traffic and even go as far as to list them in order. gaming review sites would be at risk of losing their metacritic scoring should they piss off gamers by putting out troll reviews or upcoming sites rise in popularity due to honest indepth reviews.
Yeah despite how ****ly they are, They still piss out good games year after year
I'd like to see these figures compared to how much each company spent on web based advertising.
Of course they are the best. Many haters will disagree but look at EA's games list over past 10 yrs. The sheer number of Original IP's , risks, huge changes, engine changes etc etc Undoubtedly they will be at the top. Last year my most played games were mainly EA games. SWTOR, ME3, BF3 and the map packs, Fight Night(though not from last year) and FIFA also not to forget replaying Mirrors Edge couple of times :D What game am I still playing today. Well BF3 daily, SWTOR daily and FIFA at times. Might give Dead Space 3 a go sometime later. EA meets my entertainment needs. Im not a supporter of their sometimes dodgy activities but well im happy with the games and thats what I should be worried about. If a gamer wont like something dont go for it simple.
Hopefully this opens the eyes of many on how BS videogame reviews are.
Like them or hate them, most of EA's games are good.
So nobody's going to mention that Microsoft were ranked second? This after being ranked first last year. Also, wow Microsoft published 45 titles last year?? What the hay?! They mostly published games with good reception as well compared to SONY who seem to have published a sea of mostly mixed reception games.
To finish second with that many games is also impressive.
Mass effect 3 was a steaming pile of shit. I was a huge fan of the trilogy until that dump landed on my face. Dead space 3 looks fun, but I'm honestly scared to buy it. I have no idea if its another ME3 or not. Battlefield 3 got old on consoles, as it just didn't feel right half the time personally.
I would put Dead Space 3 as a rental at the very least; so far, it doesn't seem hasn't really disappointed outside of it losing a slight bit of the previous two games' charm when it comes to horror. I'd wait til it drops to around $40, but it was in no way a disappointment like ME3's base endings were. (Of course, the only thing I didn't really like of ME3 was the excessive focus on Cerberus over the Reapers and the way the endings were presented so, depending on where we differ, you may still want to take my word with a grain of salt)
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.