Log in or sign up to comment
61 Comments
  • 61 results
  • 1
  • 2
Edited by Little_Socrates

@Sunjammer said:

Metal Gear Solid 4 is still the biggest piece of shit still in my collection, take that Metacritic average.

Dunno if I'd go THAT far, but it was an extreme disappointment and easily one of the most frustrating games this generation. Of course, I buy more games than most people; if you buy five or ten games a year, I could see MGS4 being the worst one.

EDIT: Shit! I forgot to respond to the question at hand! Brain fart!

Okay, so I agree that critics should be allowed their divergent and activist voices. And if 343 provoked such a violent negative reaction out of someone that they felt the need to drop the MC score by three points, maybe they shouldn't get their metascore bonus. But I hope Chick was absolutely, 100% conscious of what his review was going to do to that metascore and that he was probably going to affect the Halo 4 pay bonuses when he went with activism over objectivism. Obviously, objectively, Halo 4 is not a 1-star game. It functions, you can play it online, there's quite a bit of content, and it's technically very impressive. But he didn't just go with subjectivism, which would be a low score based on the fact that he didn't have any fun. He went with activism, complaining about changes that make the game rote, routine, and similar to every other game out there. I totally understand that choice, and if he understood the consequences he would inflict upon himself and 343 by doing so, then go with God.

But, let's just say I'm not about to trust Tom Chick to review a game through any lens other than activism down the line.

Edited by EXTomar

As a side topic: I believe the process of "rewarding bonus on positive review scores" is a terrible thing. It promotes creating games and investing a bunch of money to manage a small and niche set of people instead of creating a game that they believe in that the masses come to appreciate. I see how developers and artists are enticed to work on challenging projects with bonuses is a good thing but it should be more rewarded on sales instead of review scores. Lets reward 343 for hitting 1 million and 2 million sales instead of whether or not Tom Chick or anyone else is happy with them.

Posted by GERALTITUDE

@EXTomar: To some extent I agree (definitely about not rewarding for positive reviews), but how do you decide what good sales are? Enough to make a buck? More than the previous entry? And what if it's a brand new IP?

Doesn't rewarding sales just end up promoting mass appeal games like Madden and CoD and punishing good games that won't sell a lot like Ni No Kuni or even Darksiders II? And chasing dollars is still chasing dollars. Trying to make games that sell to the widest market possible is arguably the thought process that led to RE6 and the state of Modern Military Shooters.

Posted by Nonapod

The thing is, I don't believe there's enough evidence to even support the idea that higher Metacritic scores typically translate to higher sales. Someone did a little research on this a few years ago (only using vgchartz sales data unfortunately) and it seemed to indicate that there was no strong correlation between Metacritic scores and actual sales. Again, it's only vgchartz data so take it with a grain of salt, but I think it's silly for game publishers to assume a higher Metacritic score will automatically translate to more sales.

Edited by ProfessorEss

@SomeJerk said:

The sooner publishers realize they're digging their own graves by listening to metacritic the better, bring on the one-star reviews.

I'll take it one step further. Publishers shouldn't even get as far as ignoring Metacritic. Go right to the source and straight up ignore the review process all together.

The fact that a team of highly skilled and educated professionals can be effected so powerfully by an internet pack of video game playing big mouths with little to no tangible credentials to be doing so totally blows my mind.

Posted by Vinny_Says

I thought sales were still the default measure for industry success. I mean look at THQ, some great games released and still that company is in the shitter.

Posted by Doctorchimp

@ProfessorEss said:

@SomeJerk said:

The sooner publishers realize they're digging their own graves by listening to metacritic the better, bring on the one-star reviews.

I'll take it one step further. Publishers shouldn't even get as far as ignoring Metacritic. Go right to the source and straight up ignore the review process all together.

The fact that a team of highly skilled and educated professionals can be effected so powerfully by an internet pack of video game playing big mouths with little to no tangible credentials to be doing so totally blows my mind.

Yeah jesus christ. I find it a little disheartening a team of creators and thinkers give two shits about what a website estimates what some smartass on the internet said.

Grow some balls videogame duders. Do you think Hollywood honestly gives two shits about rotten tomatoes?

Edited by HiHarryArcher

Interesting read. For what it's worth, the review behind the statistic provides food for thought.

Tom Chick's review:

"...The last few Halos seemed to be stretching their legs. The jazz bar melancholy of ODST’s ruined city and the last-stand grimness of Reach had character. They seemed to realize you can only go so far with a faceless dude in a suit of armor. But now we’re back to Master Chief doing all over again what he’s already done before. There is literally nothing that happens in Halo 4 that hasn’t happened in one of the earlier games."

Presently, this nails exactly how I feel about Halo 4. I don't particularly think Chick's being overly "look at me" with his reviews points, (perhaps the score is a little incredulous). Rather, it would seem that his personal experience with the game is very much similar to mine. I'm yet to find any great innovative leaps in Halo 4, it's just feels like a (lovingly) polished version of a pre-existing formula made to catch up with modern FPS expectations. For me, the game plays predictably and offers very little in the way of "new". It's all just a little boring, contrived and off-the-shelf manufactured. Perhaps a little too much attention was paid to the men featured in this article.

Also, they could have kept the Grunts funny. There's no need for the robotic voice 343i added.

Posted by EXTomar

I am using the "sales" in very lose terms. Any modern game has away to measure how many people are playing it where they don't need to ask anyone else. There are other metrics they can use as well. Did they deliver the game on time? Did they deliver the game under budget? There are ways to reward that where the easiest is "You keep the money not spent".

Video games are a business and when a game is successful teams should share and relish the rewards. To me, managing Metacritic scores and subsequently tying bonuses to them doesn't improve anything about the game and seems like a giant waste of resources. So why do they do it? They seem to do it only because it is one of the few things they have to measure anything which is a pathetic way to look it.

Posted by Antikythera

@fuzzypumpkin said:

@Antikythera said:

@Nightriff said:

MGS4 is one of the greatest games this generation of consoles. Period.

+1

+infinity.....I win

Thank you for your contribution.

Posted by steveurkel
@Nightriff said:

MGS4 is one of the greatest games this generation of consoles. Period.

How does it feel to be wrong on all levels