EA Says They Want "To Be 90 Plus Metacritic At Everything"

"EA is in a really interesting place. We have this bar that is set so high, so that whether it is any of our games or services, we want to be 90 plus Metacritic at everything."

http://mynintendonews.com/2012/06/24/ea-says-they-want-to-be-90-plus-metacritic-at-everything/

Nothing wrong with that

Their blind greedy ways wont get them that.

Nothing wrong with that, but putting out a sequel every 1.5 years, running on EA servers, with underpolished features and such probably won't get them past the 80's zone they have been in lately.

Ok so stop it with the strict release schedule for each of your franchises.

So they're going to be bribing reviewers even more, now?1PMrFister

I don't think you should make a work of art with the mindset of it being well recieved or selling extremely well. Obviously you should try and make the best work of art you can, but you should focus more on creating the work of art because you want to create an experience, tell a story, ect., rather than think how well it will be recieved.

This reminds me exactly of LeBron James saying, "not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, not 5, not 6, not 7", in terms of championships. Instead of raising the expectations so high, just take it one at a time. Mass Effect is the only series I can think of from EA that has hit a 90+ on Metacritic lately. They should take it one step at a time.

Also, lol@people who say Metacritic and Gamerankings don't matter.

More power to them, we all win if EA makes great games.

If you're gonna dream, dream BIG.

But they're going to pay for that 90.Jebus213

Also, lol@people who say Metacritic and Gamerankings don't matter.

arkephonic

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

Also, lol@people who say Metacritic and Gamerankings don't matter.

famicommander

You have no idea how much power Metacritic has on the industry. There are contract incentives, jobs held or lost, green lights and red lights given for new projects, stock rises and drops all based on it. It means a lot more than you think it does.

This explains alot.

EA:How do we make our games have 90 metacritic scores?

EA employee: Call of Duty has high metacritic scores"

EA: Brilliant! Lets turn Mass Effect and Dead Space into online shooter games!

[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="arkephonic"]

Also, lol@people who say Metacritic and Gamerankings don't matter.

arkephonic

You have no idea how much power Metacritic has on the industry. There are contract incentives, jobs held or lost, green lights and red lights given for new projects, stock rises and drops all based on it. It means a lot more than you think it does.

So they will further devalue the international review system. Great.Zeviander

This explains alot.

EA:How do we make our games have 90 metacritic scores?

EA employee: Call of Duty has high metacritic scores"

EA: Brilliant! Lets turn Mass Effect and Dead Space into online shooter games!

crimsonman1245

Even at its all time high, the review system was never any more valuable than a bag of dog crap.famicommander

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"] They absolutely don't matter. Maybe with respect to getting a few more sales, but Metacritic and Gamerankings are nothing more than biased, weighted averages of a bunch of terrible sources. Game journalism is the biggest joke in all of literature. Idiots blogging about their cats contribute more to society.famicommander

You have no idea how much power Metacritic has on the industry. There are contract incentives, jobs held or lost, green lights and red lights given for new projects, stock rises and drops all based on it. It means a lot more than you think it does.

I know people like to lash out at game editors and their contributions to the game industry as a whole, but let's not forget that game editors are essentially the foundation of a site like Gamespot. They're the primary reason sites like this are as popular as they are and drive as much traffic as they do. They're just doing their job and I doubt they like being criticized by people like you for doing their job, many of whom do their job very well. I know that I've been on the fence about a lot of games, and just learning more about them from sites like Gamespot has given me the knowledge I needed to make a decision as to whether or not they were games that I wanted to invest in. Their job is to help people spend their money efficiently, yet people like you completely lose sight of that and think they're just a community of people out to ruin the gaming industry.

Besides, I've noticed that the scores from sites like Gamerankings and Metacritic are generally synonymous with the actual quality of the games that I play through. I very rarely disagree, and if I ever do, I don't majorly disagree. If you can put your biases aside and look at the reasoning as objectively as possible, it usually makes sense. Sometimes single publications get it wrong, but you very rarely see the collective efforts of the entire industry get it wrong which is what sites like Gamerankings and Metacritic offer.

[QUOTE="famicommander"]Even at its all time high, the review system was never any more valuable than a bag of dog crap.Zeviander

[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="arkephonic"]

Also, lol@people who say Metacritic and Gamerankings don't matter.

arkephonic

You have no idea how much power Metacritic has on the industry. There are contract incentives, jobs held or lost, green lights and red lights given for new projects, stock rises and drops all based on it. It means a lot more than you think it does.

even though my skin is crawling, I have to agree with Arkephonic.

I remember reading a study that games that get 85+ scores on metacritic sell a hell of a lot better then those that don't even games that are simply not advertised that much sell much better if they get a meta score in the 90's

Why wouldn't they want a ''100 Metacritic'' :(

I know people like to lash out at game editors and their contributions to the game industry as a whole, but let's not forget that game editors are essentially the foundation of a site like Gamespot. They're the primary reason sites like this are as popular as they are and drive as much traffic as they do. They're just doing their job and I doubt they like being criticized by people like you for doing their job, many of whom do their job very well. I know that I've been on the fence about a lot of games, and just learning more about them from sites like Gamespot has given me the knowledge I needed to make a decision as to whether or not they were games that I wanted to invest in. Their job is to help people spend their money efficiently, yet people like you completely lose sight of that and think they're just a community of people out to ruin the gaming industry.

arkephonic

Of course.

Their blind greedy ways wont get them that.

BilkeLegenda

I have never seen a company so dedicated to doing everything WRONG. They might as well get chimps to run the company at this point.

Pandering to review scores is probably the worst way to make a game.

[QUOTE="BilkeLegenda"]

Their blind greedy ways wont get them that.

Animal-Mother

Review scores are for people who need to be told what to think.famicommander

Former editors from this very site have used connections they made as so-called journalists to advance their careers and break into different fields of the industry (community management, game development). famicommander

To be honest, I don't have too much of an issue with that. Greg Kasavin did just that and we got the excellent Bastion as a result. There are some guys out there using their experience with playing/critiquing games for a living and now are making excellent games. Frank O'Connor and David Ellis from 343 are both ex journo's and are doing some pretty excellent stuff with the Halo franchise. we can't expect people to do this all of their lives. It'd be really dumb if they didn't use their contacts to advance. For a lot of these guys it's their dream, it's why they got into the business in the first place.

Most of what I have played from them has trouble being justified at 85 let alone 90.

This is why it's important reviewers favour creativity and uniqueness over polish. To force the big elephants to take some risks.

This is why it's important reviewers favour creativity and uniqueness over polish. To force the big elephants to take some risks.Sushiglutton

Also, lol@people who say Metacritic and Gamerankings don't matter.

arkephonic

Well GameRankings doesn't.

Well GameRankings doesn't.waltefmoney

[QUOTE="waltefmoney"]Well GameRankings doesn't.Zeviander

I've never once heard a publisher or developer mention GameRankings. It's always Metacritic.

I've never once heard a publisher or developer mention GameRankings. It's always Metacritic.waltefmoney

They'll have to spent some good money paying the reviewers :lol:

To achieve what they want, they would have to cut all the greed for money.

It's virtually impossible for them to get 90+ reviews if they continue by the way they are usually doing. Their games are awful except Dead Space and the 2nd one.

Anyway, best of luck to EA. They would have to change their terrible business plan if they want to go that way.

They'd lose too much money from giving out bribes.

[QUOTE="waltefmoney"]Well GameRankings doesn't.Zeviander