Dear Reader:
You are viewing
a story from GN Version 4.0.
Time may not have been kind to formatting, integrity of links, images, information, etc.
Spector argues against Metacritic importance, uses Epic Mickey as an example
As you guys know, I am against Metacritic. I do not have anything against those that submit their review scores to the service. It's just my personal opinion that Metacrtici does more harm than good. This is a stance that has lost me quite a bit of opportunities, truth be told. With that said, I stand by my opinion and will not change it to lure in more support from publishers and PR contacts.
Warren Spector is also against Metacritic. In a recent article, he discusses how companies determine all sorts of game support based on projected Metacritic scores. In other words, publishers predict what score a game will get, then dish out funds for any number of areas based on that make-believe score. How absolutely insane is that?!
Spector uses Epic Mickey scores as an example of his experience.
For example, with Disney Epic Mickey, I know of several perfect scores (higher even than I would have given the game!) that were simply not listed or included in the game's average. And we're talking about high profile, well-respected sites here. By way of contrast, our worst review scores, typically from Some Guy With a Website, were integrated in the aggregation instantly. I know this sounds like sour grapes and if you want to interpret this in that way, you're welcome to do so. But with future projects, team bonuses, and so on hanging in the balance, I don't think it's inappropriate to ask for a public discussion of the reasoning behind reviews that are included in Metacritic's calculations and those that are not.
I really don't feel that we can keep moving down this path. This kind of support makes no sense at all, which might we why publishers are going for it. More often, it seems that the bigwigs at publishers have little to no experience with what games are, how they work and what should be funded.
Article here
Warren Spector is also against Metacritic. In a recent article, he discusses how companies determine all sorts of game support based on projected Metacritic scores. In other words, publishers predict what score a game will get, then dish out funds for any number of areas based on that make-believe score. How absolutely insane is that?!
Spector uses Epic Mickey scores as an example of his experience.
For example, with Disney Epic Mickey, I know of several perfect scores (higher even than I would have given the game!) that were simply not listed or included in the game's average. And we're talking about high profile, well-respected sites here. By way of contrast, our worst review scores, typically from Some Guy With a Website, were integrated in the aggregation instantly. I know this sounds like sour grapes and if you want to interpret this in that way, you're welcome to do so. But with future projects, team bonuses, and so on hanging in the balance, I don't think it's inappropriate to ask for a public discussion of the reasoning behind reviews that are included in Metacritic's calculations and those that are not.
I really don't feel that we can keep moving down this path. This kind of support makes no sense at all, which might we why publishers are going for it. More often, it seems that the bigwigs at publishers have little to no experience with what games are, how they work and what should be funded.