It's not surprising. I can tell you that given human nature, many people would be perfectly happy if there was never another generation of game consoles... that is until they actually SEE what's coming, then the "Gee whiz" "I gotta have it" factor kicks in. Most regular people aren't very imaginative. They can't imagine anything better or cooler than what's in front of them, or more precisely, they won't put forth the effort to try to envision new possibilities.
Nonapod's forum posts
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.
If publishers withhold bonuses if a Metacritic score requirement is not met, I find it hard to believe developers don't pay close attention. Of course it's all anecdotal conjecture, and I'd be happy to be wrong.
I can't speak to what might be going on internally between publishers and developers either, but if they are indeed offering or withholding bonuses based if a game reaches a particular Metacritic score or not, it doesn't seem like a good system of evaluation of a particular developers work. A more logical system would be if a game reaches a particular sales goal, or simply giving developers actual revenue shares.
Unfortunately for everyone, consumer and industry, “success” is currently measured in the Metascore
I get the point you're making but this statement isn't exactly true. While a games Metascore is certainly a small factor, strictly speaking from the industry's standpoint a game is successful if it makes tons of money. Reviewers can dump on a game (or movie or music album or TV show or book ect.) all they want, but if it still sells well and makes a hefty profit, then it was a success.
And if game companies are using their own internal reviewers to determine if an early build of a game will score well, I look at that as another level of QC that will most likely tend to lead to better games. After all, if someone is pointing out the glaring problems a game has earlier on, it's more likely that they will be fixed before release.
But I certainly agree that Metacritic is pretty far from an ideal quantifier of a games worth, I'm just not convinced that the game developers themselves are relying too heavily on it at this point.
I like pixel art art look, but I will admit it's getting a tad overused.
I also think a lot of Indie games lately rely too heavily on the whole cartoony cell shaded look. Not that I have a problem with the look itself, I just think it's starting to become a bit of a cliche.
Basically my point is if you're designing a new indie game and you want it to stick out from the vast sea of small budget me-too games out there, you should probably try to avoid that certain look indie game "look"
Not sure, but my guess is not a lot more than a regular sf2 champion edition cart. It's kind of a novelty but I think you can get a lot of those types of hacks with a SNES Game Genie or through hacked ROMs anyway.