Metacritic Adds, Then Pulls Developer Review Scores

[jvsquare]

Hammer out the kinks? There aren't kinks, there's one huge and fundamental dent. The problem is that game development is inherently a collective effort -- one member of a team can take a project down making everyone else look bad, or vice versa, an individual can look better because the rest of the team is made of hotshots and gets the job done.

There is no fair way to rate an individual based on a group rating.

 

[DTWolfwood]

Spoiler: condensed

sounds like a good idea. GL with that endeavor. Might give me more reason to visit the site than the occasional lolz i get from looking at the critic/user score, DA2 for example XD

Sounds like a good idea if they get it right. I already do that on Steam, if I find a game I like, I generally look at the development team that made it and see what other games they've got up on Steam.

This is the sort of thing I could really get behind. I hope they look into this more, and put some funding behind it to get it established.

Is there perhaps a need for an IGDB?

I think you people either need to look up what they were really doing, or just why it's such a bad idea...of course this statement, and consequently the article, is full of PR spin - [though the "Mores the pity" line ensued The Escapist clearly think it's a bad idea too] - but they were actually assigning individual people a "score" based on all the games they had worked on regardless of position. Of course this score being from Metacritic it was an average.

There're a million and one problems with this system, the primary worry being that publishers would start using it to hire people with; they already attach bonuses and targets to studios to gain specific Metacritic scores, and base what games they'll find around these scores - it seem the logical step they'd take. Furthermore the fact it's an average meant those that had worked on quality titles with a few poor ones they weren't actually involved in directly [say the "Producer" of a port] - their score would drastically drop; Miyamoto's score was an 80, for example, despite the games he had worked on as designer being much higher than those he produced.

The way Metacritic assigned the scores to position ratio meant that the position was very unclear - it was clearly all about the score - and Metacritic at the moment when scoring games is terrible [see the 100 they gave The Escapists review of Dragon Age, despite the 5 point system not representing that kind of standard at all].

If you'd like more detailed analysis just check out:

Rock Paper Shotgun [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/28/not-a-man-a-number-metacritic-rates-devs/]
Kotaku [http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/03/metacritic-now-rating-humans/]

And so on - it was a terrible idea anyway, but the way they implemented it would benefit absolutely nobody - especially not the consumer; teams make games - not individuals.

im pretty sure everyone who is in their right mind does not take anything from Metacritic's scores at face value.

If developers are scored individually perhaps they would get some notoriety for their creations. other than your big names like Molyneux, Blizenski, Wright, etc. If they are so worried about their score on Metacritic than perhaps they wouldn't be so inclined to create terrible games?

Look everyone and everything gets scored there, actors, directors etc. If you are the lead designer of a game, you should standby whatever score critics/users give you. Less you are ashamed of the games you create, than too bad.

also hiring practices require you to have a portfolio anyway. if an executive is hiring and has no idea what games are good or bad from whomever they hire, they shouldn't be doing that job.

And im also pretty sure not every single person on the list in a development house is scored. As in the Gaffer in the movie doesn't get a score for being a good gaffer <.<

p.s. miyamoto is good a rehashing his old franchises. when he tried something new, it bombed, i.e. WiiMusic. 80 is already being generous. I don't believe any developer deserves that high of a score. the 80s and 90s should only exist with developers whom manage to create ONE one hit wonder. If you've been around, you are bound to have done something not so great. No man has the golden touch.

 

[D_987]

im pretty sure everyone who is in their right mind does not take anything from Metacritic's scores at face value.

What part of "Bonuses are given out if teams meet specific Metacritic scores" did you not understand? It happens - fact.

If developers are scored individually perhaps they would get some notoriety for their creations. other than your big names like Molyneux, Blizenski, Wright, etc. If they are so worried about their score on Metacritic than perhaps they wouldn't be so inclined to create terrible games?

A very naive and childish viewpoint of things; for one, a handful of people make the big decisions regarding games and their direction - you think it's fair that an artist is also tagged on a game that flops due to poor netcode or game design? It doesn't evaluate their contribution to the project at all - but punishes them for other peoples mistakes. Furthermore, as RPS pointed out, the current market is obsessed with FPS games - those types of games score generally higher scores than the majority [see the "mediocre" FPS Medal of Honour] - so how is it fair that whatever genre of game that person works on dictates their score?

Finally, you almost imply developers go out there way to make bad games...because after all those long hours working - and crunch time - they deliberately made a bad game didn't they... -_-

Look everyone and everything gets scored there, actors, directors etc. If you are the lead designer of a game, you should standby whatever score critics/users give you. Less you are ashamed of the games you create, than too bad.

Lead designers are often overshadowed by the publishers demands; they don't get to make whatever game they wish - furthermore, Gears of War 2's online was plagued with poor net-code throughout its lifespan - was that the game designers fault? No. So why should he be punished with a lower score as a result? Again, it's a terrible system that just doesn't work under any kind of scrutiny,

also hiring practices require you to have a portfolio anyway. if an executive is hiring and has no idea what games are good or bad from whomever they hire, they shouldn't be doing that job.

Having a portfolio of your best work is slightly different from assigning people a score based on the games they worked on.

And im also pretty sure not every single person on the list in a development house is scored. As in the Gaffer in the movie doesn't get a score for being a good gaffer <.<

Have you checked the site? That's their intention; just that people are scored on how the game is reviewed.

p.s. miyamoto is good a rehashing his old franchises. when he tried something new, it bombed, i.e. WiiMusic. 80 is already being generous. I don't believe any developer deserves that high of a score. the 80s and 90s should only exist with developers whom manage to create ONE one hit wonder. If you've been around, you are bound to have done something not so great. No man has the golden touch.

You're joking right? The guys made like 100 games - many of which introduce entirely different mechanics from previous games - sometimes in just a handful of levels...

 

[DTWolfwood]

And im also pretty sure not every single person on the list in a development house is scored. As in the Gaffer in the movie doesn't get a score for being a good gaffer <.<

Have you checked the site? That's their intention; just that people are scored on how the game is reviewed.

p.s. miyamoto is good a rehashing his old franchises. when he tried something new, it bombed, i.e. WiiMusic. 80 is already being generous. I don't believe any developer deserves that high of a score. the 80s and 90s should only exist with developers whom manage to create ONE one hit wonder. If you've been around, you are bound to have done something not so great. No man has the golden touch.

You're joking right? The guys made like 200 100 games - many of which introduce entirely different mechanics from previous games - sometimes in just a handful of levels...

lol if that is what they are doing than thats even more comical. Because the scores will definitely be unreliable to the point anyone hiring based on that needs to get their head checked

Just read up on half the articles posted about Metacritic [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/global/search/?q=metacritic+score&cx=005672590579257297818%3Amkmrjhvsnwa&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&sa.x=0&sa.y=0&sa=Search#1292] on this site alone and you'll see how much credit any one developer/publisher gives to them.

100 games. of those said 100, how many bared the Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Donkey Kong name? and were they all great games? No. were they all completely innovative? No.

How many were seen as successful games? even if say 30% (thats being real generous because i know for sure the man has only made about 10-15 classics) were in their 90s and high 80s, averages would mean the man scores less than 80 <.< this is METACRITIC after all if you haven't already forgotten. Critics and Users aren't all so forgiving as to give out 80s and 90s if they aren't the best things since sliced bread.

as a point of entertainment, metacritic is doing its user base a great service by offering the same critique to videogames as they ALREADY DO WITH MOVIES, TV, AND MUSIC. Y should the videogame industry be insulated from criticism?

 

[D_987]

lol if that is what they are doing than thats even more comical. Because the scores will definitely be unreliable to the point anyone hiring based on that needs to get their head checked

All I get from this is "lol, I don't know what I'm talking about because I didn't read any of the previous links nor have I bothered to look up information about it." Yes I'm right, but that's only because I've looked it up, what you're talking about and more importantly the point of your previous argument was that Metacrtic weren't doing this. In which case why the hell are you even arguing with me in the first place? - you don't even know what you're discussing...

Just read up on half the articles posted about Metacritic [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/global/search/?q=metacritic+score&cx=005672590579257297818%3Amkmrjhvsnwa&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&sa.x=0&sa.y=0&sa=Search#1292] on this site alone and you'll see how much credit any one developer/publisher gives to them.

This site is a terrible source of gaming news. Metacritic is hugely influential within the industry - the idea that a few PR statements from EA about a game that got mixed reviews [I guess it helps when you pour millions into marketing] is somehow proof publishers don't care about Metacritic is laughable.

as a point of entertainment, metacritic is doing its user base a great service by offering the same critique to videogames as they ALREADY DO WITH MOVIES, TV, AND MUSIC. Y should the videogame industry be insulated from criticism?

Ignoring the appalling way this paragraph is written; Metacritic's faults are pretty damn obvious; it doesn't mean their critiques on other areas are any more accurate. This is you clutching at straws to defend Metacritic...