Support NeoGAF

[rm082e]

I mean, he has a point, it's just irrelevant. As a customer, I am looking at the pros and cons of a product and trying to decide how much I would be comfortable paying for that product. A good game that has bugs and problems is going to be worth less to me than full price. So either they need to fix it quickly, or I'll wait for the price to go down (typically by 1/3).

There are too many good games out there that are worth my time and money. I can't justify spending full price on a buggy game near its launch. If developers can't ship a good quality technical product, and can't keep the business going as a result, then that's market forces weeding them out. This is "working as intended".

 

[ZoukGalaxy]

I don't give a shit about metacritic, if a game is interesting me, this will not prevent me to buy it.

However, what he is saying is just BULLSHIT especially after the REDFAIL bad joke: the core was bad and delivering a broken game is not acceptable at launch, devs always counting on day one, online and later patch is extremely bad practices even if you can "fix it later".

NOBODY would accept to buy a brand new broken car that will be "fixed later" by manufacturer, I know this is not the same thing but this comparison is still relevant: you won't enjoy your car or be able to use it properly if it's not a "finished product" at delivery time.

If Nintendo can deliver polished and high rated metacritic game needing NO day one patch, anyone can.

I prefer an extremely delayed and properly finished good game than a bad game launched "in time" and broken, broking also my enjoyment, we have too much game nowadays anyway, there is no hurry to release quickly a game, or then, just announce it only when it's a ready to ship. "GOLD" step have no more true meaning for devs: this is pathetic

He's right about the "industry problem" but the problem is not where he thinks it is, HE IS part of the problem thinking that we can release an unfinished game, especially physical.

 

[Astray]

A lot of gaming takes kinda forget that video games are a product before all else, if the product doesn't want to start or bricks your PC/console then it deserves a bad mark, even if Picasso and Kurosawa delivered their best work ever on it from an art P.O.V.

With that said, I think there's a good youtuber or indie review site gimmick in revisiting controversial games after they are patched, not necessarily to suck their dick (which is how we got the over-glorification of Japan Studios).

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Sounds like another copium spin for soso games.

 

[HogIsland]

Dishonored 1&2 both have excellent MC scores of 88. Are they play it safe garbage?

 

[near]

Interesting and smaller titles are scored poorly (Slitterhead ) because they can be measured against the same metric as AAA titles. Lack of polish is penalised even if the game performance is sound. That recent Laura Fryer video that talked about the games industry bubble was also spot on. Sites like IGN enable developers to form bad habits in game design, since like it or not, reviews influence gamer perception and consequently sales.

 

[Wildebeest]

Dishonored 1&2 both have excellent MC scores of 88. Are they play it safe garbage?

Dishonored 2 was certainly playing to the peanut gallery. Some things were polished up, but overall it wasn't as risky or creative as the original. Safe is a word I'd use for it, and it didn't really work, as the series is dead.

 

[LavitzSlambert]

Contemporary review scores are only useful as a tool to determine if a game has objective issues that hurt the experience (very low score), or to alert you of a game deserving of your attention if it wasn't currently on your radar (very high score). Every other factor is qualitative and so subjective that you may as well just fine a reviewer that has similar tastes, and listen to what they're saying before ultimately deciding for yourself.

 

[ProtoByte]

People really like to shift on when Meta score does and doesn't matter.

There have been 3 previous Stalker Games, and they've all been busted at launch. Back then, they still got generally favourable review scores. 4 games in and 17 years after the first, there is no excuse for releasing a busted game that is glitched, broken in mechanical ways, etcetera. Games like these used to get good review scores despite the jank, people even used to excuse that jank or pretend that it added to the "charm".

But now we've got too many examples of fully functioning open world games, that it no longer passes. It shouldn't pass.

There was absolutely nothing "risky" on a design level for Dishonored or Redfall. 3rd rate immersive sims and 10th rate L4D with vampires instead of zombies is just lame, not risky. It's always these types of devs who pretend they're doing something new.

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

Have we ever found proof that higher meta scores equals high sales? Either way, I agree with him that the system is fundamentally broken. I'd go so far as to say that if your average consumer uses meta scores to dictate their purchases, I don't think they'll be happy in the end.

 

[FunkMiller]

Has anyone tried putting out interesting, risk taking games that also aren't a fucking buggy mess at launch?

Just a thought.

 

[RetroGamingUK]

Completely agree.

Putting in a boat load of polish is short cut to getting good metascore.

You like broken shit games then?

Ahhh, it’s all starting to make sense now

 

[ZehDon]

Has anyone tried putting out interesting, risk taking games that also aren't a fucking buggy mess at launch?

Just a thought.

Holy shit! You're literally the first person who's ever thought of this. Fuck. Fuck. You've just reinvented the entire video game industry with one post. /s

 

[The Cockatrice]

Triple A games have been "safe" for many years. Big games aren't just games anymore, they're products that need to sell to the masses, and that won't change ever. Indies are somewhat safe, but not entirely. You better stock up on that backlog because some of you haters won't have much to look forward to in the near future.

 

[StereoVsn]

On one hand I see the point. On the other hand I am sick and tired of developers peddling broken games for $70+.

Cyberpunk - Hah!
Jedi Survivor - still a shit port on PCs
Ubisoft Star Wars Outlaws - wiped the saves of their $100-200 versions of the game
Stalker 2 - huge amount of bugs and broken systems

These games were all full priced. So ratings should reflect performance. Maybe have a separate technical competence Rating section?

What gamers should do is stop pre-ordering and don’t buy games with shit technical states. However that will very much negatively affect the industry.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

They couldn't even make a good "safe, boring" game with Redfall tho

 

[ap_puff]

Excuses
it ain't the metacritic system, it's the publishing system.

 

[RedC]

There was absolutely nothing "risky" on a design level for Dishonored or Redfall. 3rd rate immersive sims and 10th rate L4D with vampires instead of zombies is just lame, not risky. It's always these types of devs who pretend they're doing something new.

They couldn't even make a good "safe, boring" game with Redfall tho

Raphael Colantonio left Arkane Studios in 2017.

 

[ProtoByte]

Raphael Colantonio left Arkane Studios in 2017.

Prey was mid too. Yeah, I said it!

 

[BennyBlanco]

Thoughts?

My thoughts are this guy has great taste in games and he’s right.

 

[MrTroubleMaker]

I agree with him.

 

[Feel Like I'm On 42]

I realized years ago that Metacritic scores mean very little. Between certain games being overinflated based on hype, all the shitty review sites whose reviews count, the woke bias, and the sheer amount of games in the 70 range that are just as good as higher scoring games it should be obvious that MC should never be considered the final say on how good or not a game is.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

I agree with him, especially given how many developers have their bonuses (and at this point, company survival) tied to Metacritic scores. Journalists - whose ravings are increasingly irrelevant these days when it comes to predicting sales figures - shouldn't have that level of power over the system. Frankly, they should have none, but y'know.

 

[Roni]

The more time goes by, the more instances of actually enjoying something the public at large hated I collect.

 

[Three]

If your game is broken to the point where it negatively affects somebody's experience of it then fix your damn game instead of complaining about their review of it.

 

[kikkis]

Since when is making innovative and super engaging game risky and making boring drivel safe?

 

[rabbity-thing]

Outside of maybe Suda 51, I very much dislike it when games are "rough" around the edges. Like, I'll tolerate it if the game is good enough, but no way would I defend a lack of polish as being a fair tradeoff for games that are less safe. This dude's whole thesis promotes one bad thing over a competing bad thing. Both scenarios (lack of polish & boring design) are dumb.

 

[Jaybe]

So he’s trying to say an 80+ MC score is needed to sell, and yet Stalker 2 has already sold over a million.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

So he’s trying to say an 80+ MC score is needed to sell, and yet Stalker 2 has already sold over a million.

One of those zombie games called DayZ got grilled in reviews, yet has decent Steam CCU and has sold over 4M copies.

You dont always need great reviewed games to sell. But it helps. At minimum make an interesting game that can hook in gamers even if janky.

Raphael is just sore the games he worked on at Arkane didnt really sell great. And even after he left, the games that released from Arkane didnt sell either (Deathloop and Redfall).

Problem with Arkane is their games arent interesting enough to the masses for people to buy them even if some of their games got good reviews. They have an odd choice of plot, or gameplay or graphics in their games that dont resonate with gamers across lots of games. And Redfall was a total disaster on all levels.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I realized years ago that Metacritic scores mean very little. Between certain games being overinflated based on hype, all the shitty review sites whose reviews count, the woke bias, and the sheer amount of games in the 70 range that are just as good as higher scoring games it should be obvious that MC should never be considered the final say on how good or not a game is.

There's also a Japan Tax on MC scores, every Japanese made game is scored 10 points lower than an American made equivalent would be scored

 

[Hawk The Slayer]

Make Dishonored 3 similar to the feel and tone of the first two and you got yourself another great game devs, it's that simple. Maybe they could make the characters better looking but everything else is already top tier.

 

[Deerock71]

Pissing and moaning about aggregate scores is a flimsy excuse for not letting artists create art; true artists aren't appreciated until after they're dead.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

You like broken shit games then?

Ahhh, it’s all starting to make sense now

Not defending broken games either. I haven’t even started Downloading Stalker 2.

But at least broken games are memed to oblivion, and made fun of. They can have an appealing underlying game. Which one can enjoy still.

 

[MMaRsu]

He's right, look at Dragon age Veilguard MC and compare it to Stalker 2

 

[hyperbertha]

I'm assuming you played Jedi Fallen Order, so I'm not sure why you're surprised? Why do you keep buy the same games from the same developers if you're not happy with them?

It's an indistry wide problem, genius. God of war, final fantasy all suffer from the same issue. Aaa is dead.

 

[Toots]

He's right as usual.
I love to start my week with OG Colantonio crip walking all over insecure boys feeling.

 

[Madserb2023]

I agree to a point, however Astro Bot shows that if you release a game that is really well made it will get a good score even if it's not 30 hours of cutscenes. I think it's more due to costs than metacritic why games are so similar now.

 

[crackajack]

An amazing game with bugs should not be scored equally than a polished turd? Both ARE mediocre and metacritic has to reflect that. Polish your amazing game if you want an amazing score, and amazing sales. Duh? Any publisher worth a damn will finance an unfinished but obvious gem.

 

[RavageX]

Thoughts?

Agree. I don't give a damn about Metacritic. On a similar note, pretty much any type of gaming reviews these days are pretty poor. You can't even trust fellow "gamers" because of identity issues that somehow affects their reviews, paid(swag) from companies, or good ol' review bombing.

Then you have the reviewers who can't even play games. I don't remember if this was real or not, but I always think about that video of the Cuphead tutorial where it was claimed a reviewer couldn't even manage to get past it.

 

[SportsFan581]

I'd give that one a 50/50. From a creative perspective I can see this, where maybe you stick to the tried and true to avoid some kind of reviewer/user backlash. On the technical side it seems like the reverse would be true, where the pressure to try and do well would increase the need to try and eliminate bugs etc.

 

[The Cockatrice]

Prey was mid too. Yeah, I said it!

I wouldnt eat the next food you order.

 

[Danny22]

Elden Ring exists, argument is invalid.

Elden Ring is exactly what gives the metacritic score argument weight.

Compare Elden Ring to Sekiro. With Sekiro, Fromsoft went back to the basics, made an entirely new combat system (That I would argue is the greatest meelee combat of all time), made a more coherent storyline, different types of areas. Point is, they went different. They had souls formula and still, they went different and succeeded. It has a 90 metascore and solid sales at 10million.

Now Elden ring is a great game but its basically dark souls open world with a fresh coat of paint. It's more ambitious in its open worldness but its safer, more predictable too. And yet it has a 97 metascore, higher audience acclaim, higher sales than sekiro at 25 million or so.

On paper and on metascore, Elden ring is the better, more successful game. In reality, Sekiro is Fromsoft at its most gutsy.

So then, how does metascore and this industry at large not encourage safe, (and open worldish) games?

 

[Mr Moose]

Elden Ring is exactly what gives the metacritic score argument weight.

Compare Elden Ring to Sekiro. With Sekiro, Fromsoft went back to the basics, made an entirely new combat system (That I would argue is the greatest meelee combat of all time), made a more coherent storyline, different types of areas. Point is, they went different. They had souls formula and still, they went different and succeeded. It has a 90 metascore and solid sales at 10million.

Now Elden ring is a great game but its basically dark souls open world with a fresh coat of paint. It's more ambitious in its open worldness but its safer, more predictable too. And yet it has a 97 metascore, higher audience acclaim, higher sales than sekiro at 25 million or so.

On paper and on metascore, Elden ring is the better, more successful game. In reality, Sekiro is Fromsoft at its most gutsy.

So then, how does metascore and this industry at large not encourage safe, (and open worldish) games?

Elden Ring runs like shit. Stalker 2 runs like shit.

 

[SmokedMeat]

I don’t think anyone sets out to make a boring game.

Safe games, sure but that has everything to do with pleasing shareholders, and high development costs.

 

[kaizenkko]

I can agree with the arguin that metacritc in some cases not reflect the quality of the game, but desagree about the ideia of releasing broken ass games. Seems like he is trying to normalize broken releases, and that's completely crazy.