Metacritic is an aggregator; it organizes reviews from a wide variety of other groups, calculates the average and displays the result to the viewer. "Rating website" is simply poor English.
"Aggregator refers to a web site or computer software that aggregates a specific type of information from multiple online sources."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregator
Again, don't insult others if you aren't prepared to face valid, informative criticism.
There is no "Even if" about it. "Rating website" does not refer to aggregation and is simply the wrong term to use. You even went out of your way to state that Metacritic isn't an aggregator--"rating website not aggregating website."
You called another group idiots in a poorly written comment and I pointed out the irony. Arguing won't reverse that. Take the criticism on board and reconsider how quickly you insult others.
Metacritic is an aggregator; it organizes reviews from a wide variety of other groups, calculates the average and displays the result to the viewer. "Rating website" is simply poor English.
"Aggregator refers to a web site or computer software that aggregates a specific type of information from multiple online sources."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregator
Again, don't insult others if you aren't prepared to face valid, informative criticism.
Metacritic is an aggregator; it organizes reviews from a wide variety of other groups, calculates the average and displays the result to the viewer. "Rating website" is simply poor English.
"Aggregator refers to a web site or computer software that aggregates a specific type of information from multiple online sources."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregator
Again, don't insult others if you aren't prepared to face valid, informative criticism.
There is no "Even if" about it. "Rating website" does not refer to aggregation and is simply the wrong term to use. You even went out of your way to state that Metacritic isn't an aggregator--"rating website not aggregating website."
You called another group idiots in a poorly written comment and I pointed out the irony. Arguing won't reverse that. Take the criticism on board and reconsider how quickly you insult others.
Have you added anything of value to this topic yet? *checks other posts* Nope. You also may want to check rhizhim's nationality. Odds are good he speaks more languages than either of us. I haven't reported you but it is only a matter of time before you get knuckle rapped here.
The management branch of Irrational doing crap doesn't mean the devs of 2k are crap. Look at UbiSoft for example, crap publishing department and executive decisions, really good devs and mostly good games. BioShock 2 outclassed the original in almost every aspect (save for that *one big memorable twist* it didn't have) and Infinite looked promising so far to me, idk why this suddenly installs so many worries.
It's been a long time since gaming companies care less about the objective quality of their games than how much money they can make from them. Any game with a Metacritics rating above 85 is guaranteed huge profits, so clearly you can see what they aim for.
I play video games less and less. Part of it because I grow older, bust mostly because of the trend in the industry. They even dig up old successes (that would be failure by today's standards, by the way) instead of trying to make new games using what made the old ones great. Case in point: Baldur's Gates Enhanced Edition vs Dragon Age 2.
Because Bioshock 2 did the first justice. [/sarcasm]
OT: This really had better not become a common practice, otherwise all triple A games outside of Valve's are just going to end up Gears of War clones or x other undeservedly popular franchise clones, as the requirement for a job now is basically 'One of your games must be at least this much like a stupid franchise'.
I like how sometime around 1998 the video game industry just stopped hiring any new talent and has just been the same few thousand people who actually have industry experience. Once they retire no one will know how to make games anymore because they aren't willing to give any new talent training. If you aren't overqualified for a job, you won't be getting it.
It's been a long time since gaming companies care less about the objective quality of their games than how much money they can make from them. Any game with a Metacritics rating above 85 is guaranteed huge profits, so clearly you can see what they aim for.
I'm glad at least one other person picked up on that. Looking over their other posting, they are not requiring that for say this Level Builder [http://jobs.gamasutra.com/jobs/362-31025/Level-Builder-Irrational-Games-Irrational-Games-Boston-MA-United-States] posting.
Certainly Metacritic has its issues for being a good source of data, but I agree that it's not crazy to ask that your Design Manager be able to demonstrate that they can ship "good" games.
All in all, it's not like all prerequisite demands for getting a position are mandatory. In fact, how many job positions get to be news pieces?
That is still an odd thing to ask for; like a certain high amount of points on a previous professional league season in another team. It does not really prove one to be more able to repeat the feat, nor stay on a certain level, even though it's a better sign than worse results. Not to even mention we're talking about immensely subjective review scores here. And there's a huge context and a collaborative effort with plenty of different major factors, when it comes to making games.
The amount and degree of negative reactions, only in here, for a single item on the job listing, even reflecting on an unreleased game, is kind of hilarious.
Metacritic is an aggregator; it organizes reviews from a wide variety of other groups, calculates the average and displays the result to the viewer. "Rating website" is simply poor English.
"Aggregator refers to a web site or computer software that aggregates a specific type of information from multiple online sources."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregator
Again, don't insult others if you aren't prepared to face valid, informative criticism.
There is no "Even if" about it. "Rating website" does not refer to aggregation and is simply the wrong term to use. You even went out of your way to state that Metacritic isn't an aggregator--"rating website not aggregating website."
You called another group idiots in a poorly written comment and I pointed out the irony. Arguing won't reverse that. Take the criticism on board and reconsider how quickly you insult others.
i wanted to say rating website with my poor english skills but you used agregating.
thats why i said i wrote rating website not aggregating website.
aggregating/aggregator is the correct term but i did not use that word.
you changed that while going grammar nazi on my comment.
and i even acknowledged this by saying "even if the website really just accumulates different critiques/ ratings" like saying: even if you used the right word it is not what i wrote.
futhermore i said that hiring people focused on that webside is a dumb/idiotic idea since it can be easily manipulated and it is inaccurate.
if you cant see it right click on it and open it in a new tab.
and thats just the user score.
and i still feel that way.
english is not my first language, it is my 4th. so if you are having fun going around pointing your finger at others and calling them dumb for starting to learn your language, you are making yourself "look silly", or worse...
anyway i see no point in taking this conversation further.
nothing good or constructive will come out of this.
That link shows user reviews. The OP clearly says (if you'd read it) only professional reviews count towards the requirement. So your critique was not only inaccurate, you appear to not have read the comment you're criticizing.
I honestly don't care what language you speak naively or how foolish you think this requirement is. My point has always simply been: don't be so quick to insult others and call something idiotic, when you yourself are not the wisest in the land.
The message was simple. Refrain from pointing your finger at others if a quick retort upsets you so much.
Oh yes, they are. In fact, the more our precious developers listen to MC, the more fanboiism we'll see, and thus VALVe will monopolize the entire market at some point ... Oh wait, that does sound kinda good. Go ahead, nothing to see here.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
