See the correlation between Metacritic scores and earnings at the big companies.
I would have to say "No". Advertising and branding are the #1 factors that results in financial performance. Case in point: Halo 3. Sub-par graphics (yes, compared to other 360 games at the time, the graphics were sub-par), sub-par gameplay enhancements, and a sub-par conclusion to what was -- in my opinion -- a storyline that started off fantastically in Halo: Combat Evolved but quickly sped downhill as the series progressed.
Man, you sure have more guts then me to be hitting the best franchise of MS. Here's a free bubble ^^ But i do agree on one thing. Marketing is THE factor of sales.
Halo is NOT Microsoft's best franchise by a long shot. Their most popular? Sure, but not their best. Fable, Forza, Age of Empires, Flight Sim, and Rise of Nations are just a few of their products that are superior to Halo 3.
Point taken. I mistook popular for best. ^^ Fable is the game that i love the most from MS. stil play the PC version once in awhile n go back 2 Fable 2 sometimes.
umm ... they're talking about games that get a good review on meta critic and sell badly ... like mad world ... it got 82 at metacritic and 9.2 by fans but only managed to sell 70,000 units which is considered a bomb.... ur talking about halo 3 which got a 94 rating on meta critic and it also managed to sell pretty well... halo 3's quality is just YOUR opinion ... but the avg at meta critic suggests that it got great reviews all around which shows that its was commercially and critically well recieved. in the end its just boils down to... did it live up to ur expectations that you had hoped it would... user score for halo 3 over at meta critic is a 7.2 and so clearly some were let down by it just like you ...
See, here is the problem with critics. People predisposed to hate on a game, aside from not having the presence of mind to objectively look at a game in the first place, will claim a game with good ratings is over rated. Likewise, a game the critic was looking forward to and would tend to like, regardless, will ignore the low scores and promote it as a under-rated masterpiece. No, Metacritic isn't an accurate measure of quality. I have plenty of low scoring games I love and high scoring games I hate. But sales is an accurate depiction of quality. It's the ONLY objective measurement you can get, and though it might be flawed, it's what we got. And frankly, it's all the relevant companies really cares about. What WE need to do as fans is tell the armchair analysts to take a hike and simply play the games you want to play. Who cares how well a game does, as long as it's online game is well populated.
@Shbzshar - what Gwave is trying to say is that good ratings doesn't mean good financial sales. Look at LBP it got great ratings, and it's sales are ok but Halo 3, GTA4 sales are phenomenal but the games are not great. Halo 3 is ok, but it is as Gwave says, the graphics, gameplay and quality of the game in general is sub-par to a lot of games. GTA4 that game just completely sucks (imo), worst GTA in a long time, and it sold a lot because of marketing and branding. Even the reviews were affected by the hype for the game, it got so many 10s and the game is like a 7 really.
Okami cries out into the night.
ico and shadow
@Why SoTC sold well actually (over a million copies) but yeah.. Okami and Psychonauts
some of the best games throughout the generations have not been as financially successful as some of the crapper, more popular ones. Its the same in all entertainment industries. Blockbusters are rarely the best movies and the same goes for platinum selling artists. Yes there are some in all industries that have parity with quality and commercial success but those tend to be few and far between
As always, like in music and nowdays we starting to see films. Crap mainstream quality = $$$ (WiiPlay 50mil sold)(Jonas Brothers)(Xmen Origins, Wolverine) For game examples there are hundreds. Valkyrie Chronicles ICO Shadow Of The Colosus Okami Guitarooman and all cult classics Quality = low sales
Perhaps WiiPlay sold so much because a controller came bundled with it? That bundle was cheaper than buying the controller alone, at least where I live.
What about WiiFit? Or Wii<Insert ehre>
Actually, i like games like Atelier Rorona, Atelier Iris, Cross edge, Suikoden, etch. While i find them fun to play, they never where targeted at major audiences. And thus they can never be compared to Metal gear, Gears of war, Halo etch. Theres quality and quality, Games like Metal gear, Gears and Halo are quality in every aspect, while games like atelier rorona are only quality in gameplay aspects and are meant to attract the fans of those gameplay elements. As soon as games like the atelier series and cross edge become mainstream, they get a bigger budget as well, and then they change into large audience titles. That will also cause a series to lose its niche charm, and thats not what we want do we ? So instead be glad that a game is made for a smaller audience, stays that way, and still gets sequels.
Definately no, but games that sell well usually get pretty good scores (around 8 or 9/10) The greatest games ever, like MGS, SotC, Okami, etc are made specifically for the hardcore gamers, so they won't reach a large audience.
Um, MGS is made for the mainstream. The rest however i agree on. All big budget games are aimed at large audiences, so is Metal gear. Small budget games are aimed at smaller audiences, they can still be fun to play tho. In the end its always a matter of, how much money can you spend to make a product, more money = more possibilities = bigger audience.
To people who dont follow game news, and dont look around to see what the latest gems of video gaming are, i would say advertising is the key to make them buy your product. People however who are always on the latest bits of game info, purchase a game for its quality, whether its advertised or not, doesnt matter.
Games which score well USUALLY sell well like Halo, COD, Mario and other great big name games. But games which score bad, but still had hype like Too Human or Haze sell badly. So most good games will sell well, they just got to be appealing to the general public.
passes the critics test(Reviewers...etc) and the Hype Test(insert whoever), then it is up to the Publishers and Console maker to maximize that game's sales, with proper Marketing/Education of the public about this wonderful game. That usually involves spending money. Of course, there are games that score very well (looking at averages) that sell like crap. Is it because there was no hype? Not enough Marketing? I tend to look at the Genre and the gamer-base that particular game is targeted at. Who does it appeal to? Can it have Mass Appeal and cross gamer-base lines? hardcore, casual and in-between...etc Most games that tend to sell very, very, well have "MASS APPEAL" and crosses that Hardcore/Casual barrier.(do the research) Anybody can pick it up and play and sometimes "THAT GAME" that brought it to the masses. Halo, FFVII, Doom, R-Evil, GT..etc. It can have the best graphics ever but it doesn't have to. So throw graphics and all the other jibber techno jabber out the window when it comes to sales. Of course the game still has to impress. I've seen low reviewed games sell over time. I've seen low reviewed games sell like sh!t. I've seen low reviewed games acquire their own niche.. This goes the same for High reviewed games but. Maximizing a game's sales goes well with these points. +Great Reviews +Great Marketing +MASS Market Appeal and crosses gamer-base barriers and sometimes Regions.(Hardcore-->Soccer mom/East-->west) +Diverse/Fruitful user-base(more potential to sell) All of these are tougher for a NEW IP and can be easier, for well known franchises with already a strong base.
I think the article takes it all wrong. First, you can't just blindly compare average review scores to a company's lineup then compare it to yearly revenue and loss then draw a conclusion. The water is too murky to see anything. A better way to approach it is to distinguish between audience and platform. Assign it to some criteria that is measurable. For instance: a) Female and kiddie games probably doesn't have as many reviews (that alone skews the result), but worse the buyers probably don't read the reviews. Thus a correlation is no longer relevant. b) The audience for Wii games are again casual gamers, they tend to buy on brand or party games. So looking at Madworld sales it is going to be poor. Same with GTA China Wars on the DS. Targeting the wrong audience with your games. Segregating it to the audience that reads reviews, play games and buy them is the only way to accurately draw a conclusion.
Developers who put a lot of quality into their work usually also put alot of creativity and style into their projects, for example, Okami and Odin Sphere. But style and originality usually equal poor sales, because the general public sees originality as scary. Though, a ton of advertising can help sell games too. SFIV being the biggest recent example. Okami is definitely the biggest tragedy of this trend.
Didn't that god-awful mario and sonic olympic game sell like a gajillion copies? So no it does not.
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.