Why game developers need to look beyond Metacritic

When Karsten Lund of IO Interactive boldly claimed that the reviews for Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days were going “to be a lot better” than the franchise’s first title, most thought that that outcome was a given. After a month of reviews from every man, woman and child, Dog Days has in fact only received a score of 64 out of 100 on Metacritic, 1 point worse than Dead Men. Should Lund reconsider his career choice, or should we as an industry stop placing so much faith in these decidedly subjective scoring systems?

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
T9X692981d ago

I think gamers need to look beyond metacritic. I hate when fanboys go X game got X score on metacritic and since its rated higher that = better game. There have been many games that score like shit, that are actually pretty good.

stannersprice2981d ago

fanboys are usually morons though. they normally defend things to the hilt because they don't want to admit that they wasted their money on something! metacritic works sometimes though and turns up some real gems that you otherwise wouldve missed.

Convas2981d ago (Edited 2981d ago )

Why do we even look at Metacritic anymore? Have you guys seen what that place has become with User Reviews? Games like Uncharted 2, Alan Wake, Halo: Reach, Killzone 2, even Heavy Rain getting 0s and 1s by fanboys who haven't even played those games.

The whole Metacritic system has become useless, a ploy used by trolls to put down or pull up what ever title they jerk off too.

When everything in life is so heavily based on opinion and personal viewpoints, why the hell would you let other people's mindsets determine your own?

stannersprice2981d ago

it's good to hear other peoples opinions though, else how are you ever going to know how a game's going to be like without buying it? i think you should never be swayed based on one review/preview/article, but you should read as much as you can about a title that youre unsure about so that you can be influenced by many different perspectives. sometimes you find out that one author has a similar taste to you, so their perspective may carry more weight. not saying people should get things based on other people's opinions, as if you do, you desereve to get screwed over now and again, but you can't live off what PR companies and the publishers say about a game.

Anon19742981d ago

But metacritic doesn't factor user reviews into their main score, so when you see a metacritic score - trolls and people who haven't played the game don't factor into it.

I think metacritic is useful. It's simply gives you an idea of what the average, professional game reviewer is saying, and that takes the good with the bad. Some sites like Destructoid have become little more than a joke when it comes to reviews, choosing to go with controversial reviews for hits, yet those are still factored into metacritic. All in all if a game receives one or two points on metacritic it doesn't mean a damn thing - but when the bulk of reviewers are saying a game should only get a 50%, a smart gamer would perk up and listen to what they have to say.

The developers and game publishers use metacritic scores themselves. Microsoft was even going to use them to decide what games to pull off XBL and some publishers use metacritic to rate developers when deciding who to work with. Whether you like Metacritic or not, it's the benchmark the industry goes by. You can't ignore the impact that has.

jinofthesheep2981d ago

yes it's useful for comparison with internal metrics, but it's a rather flimshy and unpredictable benchmark. the question is whether or not the industry should depend on something so subjective as this? doesn't it hurt the industry down the line? plus, as peter moore suggests, developers and publishers can tweak games just to get extra metacritic points which don't actually benefit the game overall for the players.

in any event, i'm pretty sure that publishers don't use metacritic to judge developers as they decide who to work with, that's ludicrous. publishers aren't that stupid!

dangert122981d ago

i always look at review for games but i ignore them if i feel 2 i.e
WKC is amazing fucked what the metacritic has to say about that

LarVanian2981d ago

I think IO Interactive should look beyond Kane and Lynch and get back to Hitman.

jinofthesheep2981d ago

i think the purpose of K&L2 was to fill in the gap between the hitmans (one is definitely in the works). get some revenue in, keep publishers happy and give less experienced engineers and designers something to work with. if that's what it is, why not just say it instead of setting goals against something that's completely out of your control.

LarVanian2979d ago

No offense but that was a completely stupid post.
Why in God's name would IO Interactive only make Kane and Lynch as a fill-in until the next Hitman? That would just be a complete waste of time and money that could have gone straight into the next Hitman.

And what are you talking about, setting goals out of my control? I simply said that I think IO Interactive should get straight back to Hitman.

hoops2981d ago (Edited 2981d ago )

Review scores are from one person and subjective.....
If that person does not like that game he or she is reviewing, they give it a poor score regardless how good the game is techincally or otherwise.
This is why no true gamer should take scores seriously bcause its from ONE PERSON.
How many games have you played that you loved that recieved poor scores overall on metacritic or on some game site?
I bet quite a few.
I loved Too Human. Lair. WKC and Haze and they scored craptastic.
If I went by Metacritic to buy games then I would miss out on some great games and some even greater indie games.
If you are a lemming with no brain, then go with God and use a review site to judge games YOU NEVER PLAYED and use some strangers judgemnt you don't know from Adam.

Show all comments (16)