Metacritic Ranks EA as #1 Publisher of 2012

[Lt. Rocky]

EA is not the detest of video gaming communities for the quality of it's games, they're hated for how they do business, the customer-unfriendly treatment and what they do to the industry overall. Metacritic only reads the collective scores of critics, it doesn't judge by the business done on them.

Makes you think though, doesn't it? If EA wasn't so keen on less-than-amiable business practices and lack of customer respect, maybe they'd be showered with resepct and hailed as an industry leader.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

Hey Arin? Metacritic just announced the highest rated publisher of 2012.
*reads*
Oh, Oh, Oh,
Oooooooooooookay
Arin don't leave.
Arin don't...

EEEEEEEEERIIIIIIIIIIIN!
I LOOOOOOOOOVE YOU!

WHAT IS THIS?!?

WHAT IS THIS?!?

OT: Nah, but seriously, I'm not too worked up over this. Might as well prepare for the shit storm then.

*battens down the hatches*

Look what we're dealing with, man!

You gotta draw the line somewhere! You've got to draw the fucking line in the sand, dude!

We've got to make a statement! You've got to look inside yourself, and say... "What am I willing to put up with today?!"

Not! Fucking! THIS!

 

[Radoh]

So worst company of 2012, but best publisher of 2012.
While not mutually exclusive departments, I happen to think that this makes little sense.
Of course, I never really put much (if any) stock in what Metacritic is, does, or says; similar to IGN and the VGAs.

 

[Frybird]

In all seriousness I openly and unashamedly like a lot of games that are published by EA. However, for the vast majority of them I'm say they were good in spite of EA. rather than because of EA.

That's true (for just about every Publisher...Pubs are the same as the Hollywood Execs. Only few ever helped a product, and technically we would all be better off without them, but the money has to come from somewhere, so we better ignore them as best as we can and rather concentrate on the true creators of the content)

After reading the metacritic article, I would be much more interested in seeing the number 1 publisher of the year based on user reviews, that would be far more accurate.

On Metacritic?!? The place that gets constantly review-bombed by butthurt fanboys? You have GOT to be kidding me.

 

[FoolKiller]

I love their math involved. Its just as bad as any GPA scale.

 

[Erttheking]

Well, I guess I need to acknowledge them as the best publishers ever. HA NOT FUCKING LIKELY

 

[ryo02]

EA? best publisher? for trying to make EVERYTHING more like call of duty ... yeah bullshit.

 

[ExtraDebit]

Does it matter? We all still hate EA! And if it go bankrup and thousands of people turned unemployed we would still cheer and throw a party! The fucking end!

 

[mechalynx]

Yes well, there was this one guy that was voted the entrepreneur of the year a while back in Sweden. I know some of the guys that worked for him and they all say that he's a truly shady tax-avoiding asshole, that gets his deals by employing cheap and inexperienced labour that does half-assed jobs 90% of the time.

I am proud to say that I have never set my foot on metacritic, so no shits given there.

 

[Pete Oddly]

You know, I'd love to jump in and bash Metacritic over the head about giving an undeserved accolade to a company who's business practices are low to the point of scumbagery, but I only played one EA game this year, Kingdoms of Amalur, and it was quite good. Everything else I have only the hearsay of the Internet and the personal experiences of friends to go on.

That being said, if it were ME who got to choose the publisher of the year based solely on game quality, I'd have gone with Ubisoft or 2K. Ubisoft for Assassin's Creed 3 and Far Cry 3, and 2k for Spec-Ops: The Line and Borderlands 2. Those four are the games I enjoyed the most this year.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

So worst company of 2012, but best publisher of 2012.
While not mutually exclusive departments, I happen to think that this makes little sense.
Of course, I never really put much (if any) stock in what Metacritic is, does, or says; similar to IGN and the VGAs.

I really think that the people that think EA is a bad company and that they publish and have developers that make and do stupid things, are in a vocal minority. There are plenty of people that buy the games and don't say a thing, even if they like it, and they give the games a good score on places like Metacritic without giving a written review.

If anything, the Bioware made games would have and should have had higher scores than they got, if it wasn't for the people that stupidly zero bomb games if they don't like something about them instead of giving a proper review and score, then EA's numbers would be even better.

I for one have never played a game that I would give a zero to. Even if I didn't like a game, if it technically worked and wasn't glitchy, I would give it no less than a 4 out of 10. That is proper critical etiquette, if the product works on a technical basis, you must give it some credit. And since there are varying degrees of technically working, there are point categories for those degrees.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Seems fairly logical to me. EA, for all of the (often unwarranted) hate they get, generally put out very solid games.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

As if I needed another reason to ignore Metacritic.

 

[Sargonas42]

Seems fairly logical to me. EA, for all of the (often unwarranted) hate they get, generally put out very solid games.

Amen brother!

 

[CardinalPiggles]

I think I just heard everyone at EA pop open a bottle of virgins blood.

I kid.

Well no, good for them I guess. I hear Mass Effect was a brilliant game.