EA's John Riccitiello Bemoans Journalistic Quality of Reviewers
Ah, Electronic Arts. At one time the biggest third party publisher on the planet. A company which is constantly criticized for a lack of innovation..., a mindset that by all accounts is more concerned with the bottom line than giving the consumer something that's worthy of their hard earned money..., criticized for churning out games in a conveyor belt-like fashion...
How, then, does the CEO of Electronic Arts respond to the journalistic interpretation of their games? I'll let Riccitiello explain, via gi.biz:
Quote:
"It used to be...All Metacritics were higher once upon a time because it was ten professionals rating them. Now, sort of anybody with a pen can rate them and it ends up with a bit of a wider track some times.
"EA doesn't usually get the benefit of the cult - 'everybody has to rate it a hundred' thing going on - that happens sometimes even when they may not, based on the review, have played more than the first fifteen minutes of the game. But that's a separate issue."
Genius! It's "our" fault that their games score so low on Metacritic!
Last edited by fitbabits; 06-18-2008 at 07:52 AM..
I also agree. When anyone can throw their hat into the ring with no real credentials, the ratings lose their meaning.
That said, EA buys companies that threaten their position and puts out flaccid games more often than not. That certainly doesn't help spur creativity or originality.
I agree. This current rating mess on the internet does nothing for me.
Agreed. It may be EA complaining, but it really used to be main publications getting counted. When Xbox Fanboy Nation is being counted in the main rankings, it's hard to take Game rankings Top 10 seriously.
It's what makes Ocarina's scores so dang impressive.
To the above: reviews aren't objective evaluations of quality, stop treating them as such, they're opinion pieces therefore, the more opinions,the more information the consumer has to make a decision, add everyone possible and you'll likely have a preety good idea of how everyone views your game.
As for the cult comment, maybe it is because there is no way for most people to differentiate between any studio in the EA monolith (excluding the partner program) so bad games made by one studio reflect badly on others. Your company has a bad reputation, well done.
I think there's a great deal that could be done to improve the quality of journalism and media in this industry.
I take particular issue when a game site blatantly attempts to become the news rather than simply covering it. Such as 1up's rather blatant virtuous spin with their "we won't score MGS4". No but you didn't stop covering it and you didn't stop taking advertising money from Konami either.
Media, by its nature, is parasitic but the desire to get that headline has completely destroyed the credibility of many many sites I find myself visiting.
Reviews are frequently sloppily written, focus more on presenting the personality of the reviewer than details of the game, can be rushed, can be bribed, can be based on an unfinished product simply because the lure of that exclusive first review is so high.
And when the media have got their pint of blood from whatever game it is that 200 people have worked for 3 years on, they drop it and persue the next.
Whilst MTV had that week of scribbling stories of holding games publishers accountable for practices when persuing reviews nobody ever asked "Who holds the media accountable?" Nobody. I've seen outright lies and deliberate misrepresentation spun as important, factual, headline-grabbing stories and I don't recall a single time when the media responsible was ever held accountable.
To steal another's piece of work: the media is being the pimp when it should be the condom
More amusing is the fact that you feel attacked....
Thought I was the only one. I thought the media got the hint when Lowenstein scolded them for being children in his final DICE speech.
Guess I should repost his comments:
Quote:
I'm also annoyed with the game media. I think there's a lot of maturity that needs to happen with the game press. I think the game industry press needs a higher level of maturity and seriousness. Great other forms of media have powerful forms of critical components. The game industry press has the ability to push this industry to greater heights of success. People in the industry care more about what the game press say more than what I would ever say. I don't think the games press has asked enough of itself.
In the last six months, I cant tell you how many ridiculous rumors I've read. I've heard people say that I'm leaving the ESA because I'm upset with what happened with the E3 decision. This stuff is stupid and it's wrong. It's lazy reporting. I think the game industry press is capable of much better.
Games "journalism" does lack maturity. Honestly, there's a lack of professionalism in the field. It's driven by enthusiasts rather than journalists.
I'll agree with his points on scores. At least half of the people that write for these sites in Metacritic have no business working as writers. Hell, I'd be surprised if half of them had training in either Comm or Journalism. This is less of me looking down from some ivory tower and more along the lines of expecting more from the sources I read from. There's a reason I go to the Washington Post instead of the Gwinnett Daily Post.
The difference in the tech news industry as a whole is that as much stock is put in Wired or NYTimes article as is a post by Techcrunch or slashdot. This trend is, of course, mirrored in coverage of the games industry.
__________________ GamerTag: OneTalon | Currently Playing: Madden NFL 09 Grand Theft Auto IV
Quote:
Their marriage was built to last, but their house was built too small.
I thought Activision was the biggest third party publisher now?
They are, fits needs to change that. They'll be even larger once the merger goes through.
There is a simple solution to what he's talking about...eliminate all but the majors (whatever is termed as "majors") from the MetaCritic aggregate score. There's a reason Evil Avatar's reviews are not on either MC or GameRankings, our score would first off be misconstrued but also I don't want to be part of the aggregate.
At the site I used to write for and the other one I currently write for I believe both are on MetaCritic and GameRankings. The old one I used to write for should not be there in my opinion, the current one is borderline.
He's not really moaning about it, just laying out what's actually happening to a bunch of investors that probably don't understand the tenuous link between MetaCritic scores and A) game sales and B) game quality. I'd like to see someone make a serious attempt at a MC/GR alternative though. First, having both owned by CNet kind of creeps me out and also some more rigor statistically could lead to more useful numbers.
__________________
Fuck Microsoft's incompetent and unhelpful product support.
At this point I pretty much don't read any print reviews anymore, I look at the MC to see if a game I'm interested in is crap or not, then look for video reviews. I tend to think when someone puts themselves in front of a camera, they're more likely to have actually played the game a reasonable amount, and all too often I think print reviewers don't. And most importantly, I get to see video material of the game, so that's a huge deal for me.
I would like to see a game site with the organization of something like rottentomatoes, with decent sized quotes from different reviews.
I would like to see a game site with the organization of something like rottentomatoes, with decent sized quotes from different reviews.
Rotten Tomatoes did, for a time, have a section for games. Either I was delirious and imagined it, or it's since gone. It was poorly kept, and being part of the IGN network, I'm sure they wanted to keep the games reviews in one place.
As part of the enthusiast "press" and a games reviewer myself, numeric reviews are just garbage. It's been discussed time and again, and there's no good way to condense the experience of a game into a number. It's not science! It's spitting into the wind. Books are not assigned numbers. Music is not set on a scale. Films have the "four-star" spectrum, but when was the last time you decided what film you wanted to see based on that? I went by the details, not the numbers.
Also, there's poor standardization. If you use the American grade scale, a 75% is a C grade. Average. But that doesn't line up well with a 5 star system, where Average is 3 out of 5, or 60%. And if you think of it as a bell-curve scale, then Average should be 50%. So if one reviewer agrees with another, that the quality is enough but nothing ground breaking, the Metacritic average could be 55%, but someone who subscribes to the upwards-weighted American grade scale will assume it's a turd and never give it a second thought.
There's nothing inherently wrong with that game, it's just average. And now, a player who might've gotten his $60 of enjoyment out of it will never buy it, rent it, or even suggest it to someone else.
TL;DR - He's got a point, but he's doing it wrong. Metacritic is a terrible way to judge a game, and squares who just don't get it, man, are making decisions about what we'll play in the future based on these numbers. 88? What does that tell me about how they handle the character development? How does that indicate whether there are brilliant concepts that should be expanded upon and given another shot at life?
His bosses decide who to fire and who to grill over metacritic numbers. He'd just rather people didn't agitate his dots.
Also, I'm copy pasting this rant into my games news blog. I won't advertise here, but just in case you see it elsewhere, you'll know why.
Ah, Electronic Arts. Only the biggest third party publisher on the planet.
Not for much longer. The Activision/Vivendi deal should be approved any day now...
__________________ Now Playing: Modern Warfare 2 (360), Madden NFL 10 (360), Battlefield: Bad Company (360), The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker (GC), The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (Wii) Xbox Live: MadBrown
When there's so many reviewers, it becomes impossible to have to pay them all off.
Exactly. I believe that the more people exposed to the game will give it the broader spectrum of scrutiny. If the only play the first fifteen minutes, then obviously, as long as they state so in their reviews, that is a good enough reason to rate the game less. You can lose your audience in any media within the first few minutes if they are a bad to lackluster fifteen minutes. If it soured the reviewer, there are probably enough people just like that reviewer that will pass on the game as well.
