There is a prevailing theory that review scores affect sales. It is certainly true that there is a high correlation between aggregate review ratings, like those found on Metacritic.com; games rated over 90 percent tend to record higher game sales than their lower scoring peers. The question that was posed to the developer panel at DICE Summit 2009 was whether they designed games with reviewers in mind. The answer was an overwhelming no.
New report from Skillsearch found that 22% of those surveyed had been laid off within the past 12 months.
It's a step forward for Stop Killing Games.
The Callisto Protocol director thinks the solution involves the right people, the right timing, and perhaps a little bit of AI
I don't agree with that. I WISH I could agree with that. But buying habits and customer opinions prove otherwise
We've seen developers in the AAA space try new things and ideas. More often than not, the customers aren't willing to give things a chance, or not enough people buy into the project for it to grow.
Creativity works better in the indie space because the budgets, pressures, and expectations aren't the same.
it's a nice idea and it worked during the PS2/PS3-era when AAA didn't cost hundreds of millions of dollars. smaller budgets and shorter development time left room for more creativity and more risk. a game didn't need to sell 4 million+ copies to break even. things are different now.
This is the guy who bragged about crunching his staff and having them work through the night. Crunch culture has lost more talent and done more damage to the industry than any other factor. Screw him.
and at a 6.3 based off of 79 User votes
Halo 3 is at a 94 based off of 86 reviews
and at a 7.2 based off of 1948 User votes
So if you use metacritic strictly for an informative overall average then its fine, but if you simply base your purchase off of reviews then you are not a true gamer
Why people continue to care about Metacritic is beyond me. Constantly comapring reviews and singling out review hubs for stupid reasons. OMFG! Edge gave KZ2 a 7! STONE THEM! GameInformer gave KZ2 a 8.75! STONE THEM!
*sigh*
Metacritic is good to have an idea of what the quality of a game is.
...but I don't think that's what it's supposed to be about anyway. At least the guy who runs the site (forgot his game) even says there's never been any proof that high metascores lead to high sales. It's a better tool for consumers, IMO, who can compare scores across a range of sources of "e-Journalists."
When used in conjunction with user reviews posted on other sites, it can give a buyer a better idea of whether he or she should buy a game, IMO. In the end, a magazine's review really isn't any more credible or valuable than a user review posted on, say, amazon.com.
and maybe even find a new good site to go too, i mostly just read ign's review, and eurogamer, and gametrailers(for the video review, i don't care what their number score is). and that's pretty much it, metacritic is just amusing.