EA Sports Not Chasing Metacritic Scores for FIFA 11

[Logan Westbrook]

EA Sports Not Chasing Metacritic Scores for FIFA 11

Metacritic scores aren't everything, and can actually be harmful to games, says EA Sports President Peter Moore.

There are all kinds of ways to measure success, but for videogames, the foremost metric seems to be a game's Metacritic score. But EA's Sports President Peter Moore says that he won't be using Metacritic scores as a target for FIFA 11 and thinks that focusing on them too much can lead developers down the wrong path.

When FIFA Soccer 10 was being developed, Moore challenged the team to win a Metacritic score of 90 or better for the game. It was successful in this challenge - with the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of the game at least, which have scores of 90 and 91 respectively - but Moore believes that it's almost impossible for sports games to really go higher than that.

"In terms of what I want from FIFA 11," he said. "It is difficult to tell them to go and get a 92 or 93. It is almost impossible to take an iterative annual sports title and get it into the mid-90s." He went on to say that poor reviews don't necessarily translate to poor sales, citing the recent Robin Hood film that got a very mixed reception from critics and yet performed very well at the box office.

Moore said that Metacritic was a "slipperly slope," and there was a danger of getting hung up on the scores. Developers could find themselves treating the number as more important than the game itself, he said, and added that that was a line he was keen not to cross with EA Sports games.

Source: Develop [http://www.develop-online.net/news/35425/EAs-Moore-Metacritic-mania-a-slippery-slope]



Permalink

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

That's a very nice philosophy.

One of my favorite games averages at 66. Read Jim Sterling's 100/100 review on the list for exactly WHY...

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/deadlypremonition?q=deadly%20premonition

People get too hung up on the score, which is why I lost a bit of respect for this site (The Escapist) when they started adding review scores.

 

[Arec Balrin]

I think the problem with Metacritic is that it includes data(scores) from sources that it's hard to find credible. When some vague backwater websites give a game 90+ whilst highly regarded sites or print magazines that stake their readership on accurate consumer guidance give it around 60, should those overly-generous sources be included? There's a completely different issue when you get one review slating a game everyone else thinks is the dog's sack of brass; an accurate but unpopular criticism is worth more than any genuine or shallow praise.

But I think Metacritic gets it mostly right and EA is right to be worried: their average Metacritic scores are...average, at best. Any attempt at semi-objectively appraising their output would be unwelcome to them because it's good for players with a budget.

 

[Jared]

The reason they say this is because Fufa always is rather unfavoured in reports.....

For good reason too!

 

[Korten12]

That's a very nice philosophy.

One of my favorite games averages at 66. Read Jim Sterling's 100/100 review on the list for exactly WHY...

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/deadlypremonition?q=deadly%20premonition

People get too hung up on the score, which is why I lost a bit of respect for this site (The Escapist) when they started adding review scores.

I believe x-play gave it a 4/5 or 5/5 I forgot which.

 

[tinkyyy]

The reason they say this is because Fufa always is rather unfavoured in reports.....

For good reason too!

Over here (UK) Fifa is currently regarded the best football game this season in most press, which on some respect I can vouch for, I enjoy playing it, and it is good fun although there are a few niggles here and there they need to fix. I don't know if it's quite the 9/10's it gets given, but it's certainly a good football game.

 

[Generic_Dave]

I just take a moment to appreciate the irony of EA Sports saying that a yearly sports franchise isn't all about the numbers...

Whether its scores or moolah. It is ALL about the numbers.

 

[Fearzone]

I like that attitude.

Metacritic is good at capturing the faults of a game, but it isn't good at capturing whether a game is fun or not. I think maybe that is such a matter of subjective opinion that there may be a tendency in the game review business to keep it out of the numerical rating altogether. I don't know if that can be effectively factored in, but I know I've played 90+ games that were as bland as sawdust, and have loved many that rated in the 70s.

Jim Sterling, known for controversial reviews, has been commenting on the role personal feeling about the game have in the game review-- in other words if the reviewer just hates a game, is it okay to score a game accordingly? The more I think about it the more I think he is at least half right. In any case he writes some of the best reviews out there.

Bottom line: aiming for a high metacritic rating alone does not achieve a good game.