Sega: Metacritic Injects "Objectivity Into the Business"

[Logan Frederick]

Sega: Metacritic Injects "Objectivity Into the Business"

Sega Europe COO Mike Hayes is using Metacritic ratings of studios to judge development deals and influence Sega's business decisions.

"The first thing is that we're always trying to put objectivity into the business," stated Hayes to GamesIndustry [http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/metacritic-helps-business-objectivity-says-hayes] as he tried to respond to Metacritic detractors by explaining that management in any industry requires hard data to ensure success.

"We're a creative business, and how do you put objectivity into it? But at the end of the day publishers will always want to do that, particularly if you're spending $20 million - you have to try and find that objectivity, and it's going to come from how much it costs, when it's coming out, and how good the game is. I don't think you can get away from that, and Metacritic provides a service that gives you a part of that," he continued.

Different game genres lend themselves to more or less statistical scrutiny, something Hayes considers when choosing what projects to fund.

"If you're going for a high-end PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360 game and you want to break out in the genre, or something like that, you have to target that quality - because otherwise you don't have a hope in Hell," he admitted. "There's too much evidence that shows games which score below a certain level in certain genres are not going to cut through. However, there are other genres and other platforms where we wouldn't put a developer against that score, because it's more about the brand, the license, the release timing - it's probably something that in the Metacritic basket of reviews, they're not going to look at the same things that we're going to look for when making a game."

Sega tries to not hold the gun to contract developers' heads demanding high-quality and highly-profitable products, according to Hayes, but Metacritic scores come under review "where we're spending a lot of money, and the score is essential to the success of the product, absolutely I think there's a value in it."

"We value the scores that we're given by the media," stated Hayes. "But to demand it on absolutely everything wouldn't be right at all."

Permalink

 

[Cousin_IT]

However, there are other genres and other platforms where we wouldn't put a developer against that score, because it's more about the brand, the license, the release timing - it's probably something that in the Metacritic basket of reviews, they're not going to look at the same things that we're going to look for when making a game."

Any excuse to keep Team Sonic in business

 

[zoozilla]

I'm sure that if they took a glance at the Metacritic scores their recent Sonic games have been getting, everyone at Sega would have a simultaneous heart attack.

 

[shadowform]

You can't say "We follow these scores to determine how successful a franchise is, except for when we don't want to." It doesn't work like that. You can't say that you have the moral high ground because you follow the Bible, except for all of the parts where you don't.

 

[mattttherman3]

So this guy is just making excuses for Sonic games, well there is no excuse, the next excuse will be: The developpers worked very hard on this game and if the consumers don't want it thats their problem.

 

[HobbesMkii]

At the same time, we will also be buying ad space on popular review sites left and right. Anything to get a green box on Metacritic.

 

[bue519]

So this guy is just making excuses for Sonic games, well there is no excuse, the next excuse will be: The developpers worked very hard on this game and if the consumers don't want it thats their problem.

Yeah if consumers expect fun from their games ... whats this world coming to.

 

[dcheppy]

Reliance on metacritic is killing creativity in the games industry. Technically sound, but creatively shallow, scores high on meta-critic and developers know that. They're not going to take chances when games like Mirrors edge get mixed reviews while the Halo's and Resistances score in the 90's. DICE must think, "if we had just made another Battlefield, critics would have loved it and it would have sold well. why try to be different"

Critics in this industry need to STOP giving all good games, great scores.(especially in the FPS genre) Halo 3, Resistance 2, Killzone 2(maybe this one is, I'm withholding judgment), Call of Duty 4&5, are not all 9's or 10's/10. Critics need to say that these games are technically sound and great fun to play, but they're derivative products of each other, creatively shallow, and if you own one, don't feel compelled to own the others. The reviews should than contain enough info so readers can decide which of these shooters is the one for them, and conclude with a more appropriate 7 or 8 out of 10. average or above average. Shooters that don't measure up to the standard defined by these games need a 5 or 6 out of 10, not a 7 or 8. That way the 9's and 10's can to games that are both technically sound and creatively rich. (Bioshock and HL2 IMO although Bioshock would need to be punished for not including mulitplayer, but that is only one of the many reasons numerical scores are stupid, Bioshock would have to receive around an 8 which says above average, but really Bioshock is more than merely above average, just lacking multiplayer. It's a misleading score, but a 9 or 10 would also be misleading because the FPS standard requires multiplayer.)

Rant over.

 

[wydren]

The problem in the video game industry is that the "critics" are too quick to follow the hype surrounding some games. How else do you explain the rash of 10/10 or 100% ratings that Grand Theft Auto 4, Metal Gear Solid 4, and Halo 3 got? That kind of thing waters down scores and makes the whole point of criticism moot.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

"I will trust, believe, and support everything you say 100%.

...Unless I disagree with it"

 

[unangbangkay]

This is as boneheaded a decision as any other that involves encouraging the use of metacritic, but in Sega's unique position, it might be a good thing for gamers.

Think about it. All of Sega's best games of the past few years have been the ones that ARE NOT Sonic games. If having high metacritic scores or good reviews in general will encourage them to publish and promote their best titles -- like Valkyria Chronicles and the Yakuza games, as opposed to the sales they LOSE by wasting time and money promoting terrible Sonic game after terrible Sonic game, we might actually stop ridiculing them.

 

[joystickjunki3]

This is as boneheaded a decision as any other that involves encouraging the use of metacritic, but in Sega's unique position, it might be a good thing for gamers.

Think about it. All of Sega's best games of the past few years have been the ones that ARE NOT Sonic games. If having high metacritic scores or good reviews in general will encourage them to publish and promote their best titles -- like Valkyria Chronicles and the Yakuza games, as opposed to the sales they LOSE by wasting time and money promoting terrible Sonic game after terrible Sonic game, we might actually stop ridiculing them.

I agree, but I still defend Sonic Unleashed.

 

[Korhal]

Snip

None of your rant makes any sense. Good games get good scores. The end.

Mirror's Edge, yes, is new and different... but it has things that need to be worked on. On a 1 to 10 scale, where 10 is good, Mirror's Edge deserves around a 7. It's better than average, but it has bugs and quirks and some bad game design choices that hinder it from being at the top.

Halo, CoD... these are beautiful games with sharp, tight controls, epic stories, fun and interesting weapons, brilliant multiplayer, amazing single player set-pieces.... Yes the gameplay is similar... I see from some other dude's perspective (FIRST PERSON) and I use a gun (SHOOTER)... but why re-invent the wheel for every game? It doesn't make them bad, or derivative. Halo and CoD are in similar genres... One is a Sci-Fi War FPS, one is a Historical War FPS, and neither one is a particularly tactical shooter... thus they feel similar to each other. There are plenty of other sub-genres of shooter and these do feel wildly different. Go play Ghost Recon, Condemned, The Bourne Conspiracy (yeah it's 3rd person but it's awesome), Gears of War (also third person), and Left 4 Dead, and then come tell me all shooters are the same.

Bioshock is a brilliant single player experience (if way too easy). And if it's punished for "not having multiplayer" as you suggest... how is it one of the highest rated games in Meta-Critic history with a 96 (based on 88 reviews)?

I agree that numerical scores are not great... I also acknowledge that someone out there will always dislike a game, no matter how high it's rated or how brilliant it is. But internet Goon Rage is not how you solve it. Buy the games you like, don't buy the ones you don't. The companies that make good games will be rewarded and those that don't will be punished over time, and the mess will sort itself out.

 

[dcheppy]

Snip

None of your rant makes any sense. Good games get good scores. The end.

Mirror's Edge, yes, is new and different... but it has things that need to be worked on. On a 1 to 10 scale, where 10 is good, Mirror's Edge deserves around a 7. It's better than average, but it has bugs and quirks and some bad game design choices that hinder it from being at the top.

Halo, CoD... these are beautiful games with sharp, tight controls, epic stories, fun and interesting weapons, brilliant multiplayer, amazing single player set-pieces.... Yes the gameplay is similar... I see from some other dude's perspective (FIRST PERSON) and I use a gun (SHOOTER)... but why re-invent the wheel for every game? It doesn't make them bad, or derivative. Halo and CoD are in similar genres... One is a Sci-Fi War FPS, one is a Historical War FPS, and neither one is a particularly tactical shooter... thus they feel similar to each other. There are plenty of other sub-genres of shooter and these do feel wildly different. Go play Ghost Recon, Condemned, The Bourne Conspiracy (yeah it's 3rd person but it's awesome), Gears of War (also third person), and Left 4 Dead, and then come tell me all shooters are the same.

Bioshock is a brilliant single player experience (if way too easy). And if it's punished for "not having multiplayer" as you suggest... how is it one of the highest rated games in Meta-Critic history with a 96 (based on 88 reviews)?

I agree that numerical scores are not great... I also acknowledge that someone out there will always dislike a game, no matter how high it's rated or how brilliant it is. But internet Goon Rage is not how you solve it. Buy the games you like, don't buy the ones you don't. The companies that make good games will be rewarded and those that don't will be punished over time, and the mess will sort itself out.

1. Rants don't need to make sense. That's why they're rants.

2. On a 1-10 scale 7 is average, not above average.

3. I never suggested that Halo, Cod were bad. Just derivative, which they are. I'm suggesting that these games, in part because of their genre and sequelitis, bring little to the table in terms of creative inspiration. We've seen these Sci-fi/military settings elsewhere, and we've seen this gameplay elsewhere. Both of these games execute fantastically on their premise, but that doesn't forgive them for being shallow creatively derivative games. I'm suggesting critics should be harder on games that are "been there-done that" despite their technical excellence.

I was using FPS as an example, and I never said all shooters feel the same. Ghost Recon feels wildly different from Halo, but its still in a crowded sub-genre of realistic tactical shooters most of which borrow gameplay and settings from each other. L4D, I feel, is one of those games that is both technically excellent and creatively rich, but like Bioshock lacks multiplayer, L4D lacks compelling singleplayer.

4. I was suggesting Bioshock rated too highly on metacritic, not under-rated. Since the game was head and shoulders above its peers(peers which scored 9's and 10's) critics couldn't punish the game with lower scores despite the lack of multiplayer.

 

[Chaz D]

It's not about the critics. It's about the gamers.

I agree that metacritic is starting to cripple gaming, with less mainstream, lower-scoring games not receiving the popularity they deserve, while every gamer for a hundred miles shares frags on games like Halo.

But I think this is more due to gamer's perspectives on reviews than a problem with game critics. Reviews and review scores are an inevitable part of the gaming industry, as they are in practically anything else. The fact that Halo 3 has a metacritic score of 94 does not diminish the fact that I believe it is a particularly bland, unimpressive and overall average game. And the fact that Dynasty Warriors 6 got 59 did not stop me buying it and playing it for weeks on end.

If a gamer realises that it's only their own opinion that matters, the opinions of others, including critics, fade into obscurity.

However, I do think that the majority of the criticism of metacritic tends to come from companies who aren't producing very good quality, and the fact that gamers can now see this dents their sales (naturally). But, honestly, what is Sega so upset about? Metacritic or not, any Sonic game is still going to sell better than the Bible.

 

[Korhal]

More snipping.

You say 7 is average, but that's not the case. That's become the case in the game review industry, but it shouldn't be. The halfway point should be the average, so 5. I maintain that Mirror's Edge deserves its 7.

Sci-Fi and Historical games and movies and whatnot ARE all over the place, but that doesn't mean that all sci-fi and historical games and movies are instantly derivative. Many are, sure, but the ones that you point to are not. CoD, now working on its sixth (main series) iteration, has had fantastic stories every time, developing personal attachment to your characters in each. Sure, they don't have a ton of wiggle room with weapons, but the level designs are amazing, and the set piece battles are some of the coolest in any game. Halo set the standard for the console shooter, being the first to implement many game features that are now standard issue in both PC and console games of the genre.

"Borrow gameplay and settings from each other"? What gameplay is borrowed? Shooting other people? Seems integral to the premise to me. And what do you mean by settings? The controls? Because you could play on PC and randomly remap the buttons every five to ten minutes... but 99% of the time the default controls or something similar (perhaps moving one or two buttons, typically to make them more like your other favorite game) is what you'll stick with...

Multiplayer is not required for a game to be good. Bioshock is no worse for not having one. Hell, worse than not having multiplayer by far is having a bad multiplayer mode tacked in last second, diverting time, programming, and resources from the single player making the SP mode less than it should be. Conversely, if the focus of the game is MP, SP is unnecessary. Left 4 Dead, I believe, is taken down a notch for even including a "Single Player" option. Several of my friends purchased it after I did... and it took me forever to get them to try it online without our full group playing a local game. Now they don't play it any other way. Left 4 Dead, is, as the title implies, designed for 4 players. No less. If you don't like multiplayer, don't buy the game. It doesn't make it a worse game.

 

[MaxFan]

"We're a creative business, and how do you put objectivity into it? But at the end of the day publishers will always want to do that, particularly if you're spending $20 million - you have to try and find that objectivity, and it's going to come from how much it costs, when it's coming out, and how good the game is. I don't think you can get away from that, and Metacritic provides a service that gives you a part of that."

Isn't this just saying again that they only want to make things that will be guaranteed to sell many millions and have lots of sequels? No news, then.

 

[Erana]

Considering how few games actually get below a 6, I want to know the real average score.

 

[dcheppy]

More snipping.

You say 7 is average, but that's not the case. That's become the case in the game review industry, but it shouldn't be. The halfway point should be the average, so 5. I maintain that Mirror's Edge deserves its 7.

Sci-Fi and Historical games and movies and whatnot ARE all over the place, but that doesn't mean that all sci-fi and historical games and movies are instantly derivative. Many are, sure, but the ones that you point to are not. CoD, now working on its sixth (main series) iteration, has had fantastic stories every time, developing personal attachment to your characters in each. Sure, they don't have a ton of wiggle room with weapons, but the level designs are amazing, and the set piece battles are some of the coolest in any game. Halo set the standard for the console shooter, being the first to implement many game features that are now standard issue in both PC and console games of the genre.

"Borrow gameplay and settings from each other"? What gameplay is borrowed? Shooting other people? Seems integral to the premise to me. And what do you mean by settings? The controls? Because you could play on PC and randomly remap the buttons every five to ten minutes... but 99% of the time the default controls or something similar (perhaps moving one or two buttons, typically to make them more like your other favorite game) is what you'll stick with...

Multiplayer is not required for a game to be good. Bioshock is no worse for not having one. Hell, worse than not having multiplayer by far is having a bad multiplayer mode tacked in last second, diverting time, programming, and resources from the single player making the SP mode less than it should be. Conversely, if the focus of the game is MP, SP is unnecessary. Left 4 Dead, I believe, is taken down a notch for even including a "Single Player" option. Several of my friends purchased it after I did... and it took me forever to get them to try it online without our full group playing a local game. Now they don't play it any other way. Left 4 Dead, is, as the title implies, designed for 4 players. No less. If you don't like multiplayer, don't buy the game. It doesn't make it a worse game.

I have to disagree. It changes from publication to publication, but typically 3 stars, 7/10, C, and 70% means average.

By settings, I meant time, place, etc not controls and stuff.

Halo was not derivative(actually it is, but what isn't). Halo 3 is very derivative. Likewise with CoD. It's possible for a series to stagnate by being derivative of its predecessors. It won't change how much the consumer enjoys the game(I quite like halo 3), but critics should recognize that their isn't anything original there. Good, yes. Original or creative, no. Critics need to demand more than just well polished sequels, they need to demand games that do everything well and have some semblance of originality. Both (like bioshock and L4D)

I agree with you 100 percent that Bioshock and L4D are probably better games because they focused on doing what they do really well. I my book Bioshock and L4D are 10's and Halo 3 is an 8, but its an 8 in both multiplayer and singleplayer. It's a better value, but a worse game and that is hard to reflect in numerical scores, which is one of the many reasons numerical are stupid. That's the only reason I brought that up. L4D and Bioshock are bad values, so how should that be reflected in the scores. what would you give those games?