Top
100°

'Metacritic Focus Damaging To Game Development'

NowGamer: "Mike Bithell, Chris Delay and Dan Pinchbeck criticise the game industry's focus on Metacritic scores, both from the perspective of publishers and consumers."

Read Full Story >>
nowgamer.com
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
DEEBO2179d ago

No feed back from gamers and reviewer's is a good way not to get burn for 60 big ones.
I remember buying a game getting home to play it and it's just totally garbage.
developer's are now held accountable for releasing bad games.

Now with twitch and ustream gamers can see the games and judge for themselves.

Enigma_20992178d ago

Feedback from game reviews can be very informative. But it's wat Metacritic DOES with those game scores that is suspect. Didn't you hear what Adam Sessler said?

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Loadedklip2178d ago

Then why does he bother even reviewing games if he wants publisher's to do games to please themselves rather than the reviewers as he says in the first link you posted. Sounds ... dumb.

TheDevil15inallofus2178d ago

Ummm...metacritic --> meta + critic:
http://www.urbandictionary....
+
http://www.merriam-webster....

Yep, even though Adam Sessler says some things, Metacritic still seems to be doing what it's there to do

Enigma_20992178d ago (Edited 2178d ago )

I can tell you missed the point, and that's partially my fault. Unless they have changed their methods, they select certain game reviews, and add them together to form an overall score. I'm pretty sure the selection of scores doesn't stay consistent. And not everyone rates games the same, so just how accurate do you think it really is? That overall score in turn is used to, as Adam put it, affect the bonuses and remunerations rightfully earned by developers for work they've done. I mean, good game or bad, you should get paid for putting in work, right? But publishers would use Metacritic as an excuse to withhold earned wages to devs if the game doesn't perform to their expectations.

You guys DID pay attention to the videos, right?

TheDevil15inallofus2178d ago

Enigma, if game coders/developers are signing contracts knowing their salary is at stake if the game isn't great, that is called risk. If they are not willing to take that risk, they shouldn't sign up for the job. Bonuses, on the other hand, are added-in salary. Again, they shouldn't overspend on a budget if they don't have that cash in hand (i.e. taking on a financial risk). Most coders I know do not get paid based on whether the game/project gets completed, they get paid for their time during the process and that's it.

Does every review site always review every game, too? That could be part of where "they select certain game reviews" to put in the meta-score. If certain groups don't review a game, it can't be compiled, and would explain why there's an inconsistent addition to the meta-score.

Finally, as a consumer, I frequently query GameFAQs and metacritic for review scores, as they give me additional info before I make my purchases. If those sources impact me as a consumer, they also impact the publishers and their developers. So, why not account for either poor sales OR the metacritic score, but not both?

Enigma_20992178d ago (Edited 2178d ago )

Enigma, if game coders/developers are signing contracts knowing their salary is at stake if the game isn't great, that is called risk. If they are not willing to take that risk, they shouldn't sign up for the job.

(Sorry but I have a hard time believing that ANYONE would take that kind of risk. Actually doing work with NO guarantee of compensation is kinda stupid. I can see things like the bonuses, but not withholding payment for work actually done.)

Bonuses, on the other hand, are added-in salary. Again, they shouldn't overspend on a budget if they don't have that cash in hand (i.e. taking on a financial risk). Most coders I know do not get paid based on whether the game/project gets completed, they get paid for their time during the process and that's it.

(If we're simply talking EXTRA income and bonuses, then you have a point. But again I don't think it stops there.)

Does every review site always review every game, too? That could be part of where "they select certain game reviews" to put in the meta-score. If certain groups don't review a game, it can't be compiled, and would explain why there's an inconsistent addition to the meta-score.

(So would the fact that they all don't use the same scale to score ther games, but I'm sure you didn't overlook that.)

Finally, as a consumer, I frequently query GameFAQs and metacritic for review scores, as they give me additional info before I make my purchases. If those sources impact me as a consumer, they also impact the publishers and their developers. So, why not account for either poor sales OR the metacritic score, but not both?

(Because you're not the one who HIRED THEM TO PUT IN WORK TO MAKE THE GAMES. You didn't hire them to do a job to make the product. I don't give a d*** if my game makes a 0 out of 5, 100 or whatever, I'm not working long hours coding or programming for free.)

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2178d ago
TheDevil15inallofus2178d ago

The creator of Dear Esther complaining about Metacritic scores? Apparently The Chinese Room (his group) also made the sequel to the critically acclaimed Amnesia: The Dark Descent. Yep, that has a middling meta-score, too. I can see from where his frustrations arise...

Bottom line is, I agree that companies shouldn't hit their employees twice for putting out a bad game. Crappy sales should be enough to hurt the company overall, not denying salary/bonuses based on the poor score, as well.

sammyspam2178d ago

I try not to focus on Metacritic scores, it does hurt the industry. One of the reasons I'm liking the new Steam review system, it's more useful than Metacritic in my mind.

starchild2178d ago

I agree with you. The Steam review system is a lot more worthwhile.

Metacritic gathers reviews from particular reviewers and then averages their scores and it's like games are just branded for life with that average. As if the average of those particular reviews is THE gospel truth and everyone must agree with it. This is the attitude that exists in gaming today and it's just wrong.