Metacritic Names EA Publisher of the Year!

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

http://youtu.be/JRwrYGoE5ks?t=14m23s

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-02-06-metacritic-names-ea-major-publisher-of-the-year

I wish I was joking. According to Metacritic, EA has the highest Metascore average with 75.2%, with Microsoft in second with 73%.

Instead of me saying much about the subject matter, I will just let TB's video link do the talking.

Let the raging commence I suppose.

In the end, all of the whining about EA doesn't change the fact that EA knows good games and good developers.

Lily Venus:
In the end, all of the whining about EA doesn't change the fact that EA knows good games and good developers.

...well shit, I just got ninja'ed and there's only one post in :(

All well. Ultimately, that's what it comes down to and why I have never hated EA:

They continue to provide a fun product. Until that changes, I will continue to give them money in exchange for said product. There has been nothing they've done business-wise that makes me hate them and therefore:

image

I suppose they keep saying stupid things but until they do something I don't like, they can say all the dumb-shit they want to.

*EDIT: Also note, I can't stand metacritic. It's a stupid site and is entirely useless for gathering any information.

I'm not sure how it's an "issue" if it's an average of the metascores of all their games?

Oh, it's because it's EA?

Arguably one of the largest publishers in the industry right now, who publish games like Dead Space, Mass Effect, Need for Speed, Crysis, Dragon Age, American McGee's Alice, Mirror's Edge, Army of Two, Bulletstorm, Command & Conquer, DeathSpank, FIFA, Shank, The Sims (and even the third Timesplitters game), which despite all bitching tend to be widely enjoyed and loved titles?

It's not even like the Metascore is anything worth getting worked up over, it didn't even reach H8/10.

Because (most) reviews don't factor in the business practices of the publisher in the final score. EA releases a solid lineup of games, they get named "publisher of the year". Pretty simple. Doesn't seem like any reason to rage.

My only issue with this is that Metacritic seem to confuse developers with publishers. If the games EA publish come within a certain score, it's due to EA's developers, and not EA.

Realitycrash:
My only issue with this is that Metacritic seem to confuse developers with publishers. If the games EA publish come within a certain score, it's due to EA's developers, and not EA.

And yet if a game does poorly, its due to EA, not the developer.

Lily Venus:
In the end, all of the whining about EA doesn't change the fact that EA knows good games and good developers.

You're joking right? EA are a bunch of clueless hacks who have no idea what a good game dev looks like, if they did they would have left Westwood alone.

ThriKreen:

Realitycrash:
My only issue with this is that Metacritic seem to confuse developers with publishers. If the games EA publish come within a certain score, it's due to EA's developers, and not EA.

And yet if a game does poorly, its due to EA, not the developer.

Really? Because those who claim that either have valid reasons (the developer rushed the game, or there was a lot of corporate meddling) or they are just ranting without any base for their arguments.

Just when I thought that Metacritic couldn't be any worse.

Can I just say that seeing people blaming Metacritic is hilarious?

"Oh Metacritic, how dare you announce EA as the top publisher of the year based on criteria you established two years ago! How dare you not change the criteria in order to prevent this?!"

These ratings are based on their own invented and flawed point system which for instance only takes official reviews into account, and not the ones coming from actual players. TotalBiscuit went into EA being announced as the top developer in his latest content patch. He explains it a lot better than I did. Basically, it's a useless 'award' that doesn't hold any merit in what's actually going on.

May I point out that the system Metacritic used to determine this makes no goddamn sense. Okay, I get it if you use 1.5 points for every average % of scores but then:

'Good Games'? 'Bad Games'? What? How is this determined? 'Great Games'? 10p for every game that is considered 'Great Game'... Whah?

sanquin:
These ratings are based on their own invented and flawed point system which for instance only takes official reviews into account, and not the ones coming from actual players. TotalBiscuit went into EA being announced as the top developer in his latest content patch. He explains it a lot better than I did. Basically, it's a useless 'award' that doesn't hold any merit in what's actually going on.

While very true, the problem is the developers jobs are on the line all the time because of that stupid site. Many developers have already fallen victim because of Metacritic's flawed scoring system and it's only getting worse.

Any day now we will hear news about a bunch of layoffs by Namco because of how poorly they did according to Metacritic. -_-

I just read about how they rank publishers. It's so stupid. Even if Valve or Mojang had won it would still be stupid. It doesn't take into account anything of real value. It's just a bunch of empty numbers. The most brain dead form of statistics. No one in their right mind will take this seriously. But there's so much wrong with Metacritic, you could write a book about how trivial and nonsensical their entire system is.

These ratings are based on their own invented and flawed point system which for instance only takes official reviews into account, and not the ones coming from actual players.

"Player" reviews can be extremely flawed, with fanboyism-fuelled positive reviews and entitlement-fuelled negative reviews. For a non-EA example, look at Resident Evil 6 - within hours of its release, the game had a user score average of 0.4, with many of the "reviews" merely complaining about the direction that the game took and not its actual quality.

Player reviews can easily be tainted by vocal minorities obsessed with slandering a game based on merely one single aspect - I'm sure everyone can think of a game where that has happened.

Lily Venus:

These ratings are based on their own invented and flawed point system which for instance only takes official reviews into account, and not the ones coming from actual players.

"Player" reviews can be extremely flawed, with fanboyism-fuelled positive reviews and entitlement-fuelled negative reviews. For a non-EA example, look at Resident Evil 6 - within hours of its release, the game had a user score average of 0.4, with many of the "reviews" merely complaining about the direction that the game took and not its actual quality.

Player reviews can easily be tainted by vocal minorities obsessed with slandering a game based on merely one single aspect - I'm sure everyone can think of a game where that has happened.

Player reviews maybe flawed but they're a lot better than the reviews of paid off 'gaming journalists' who are nothing more than glorified fanboys that guzzle down corporate cum.

Lily Venus:
In the end, all of the whining about EA doesn't change the fact that EA knows good games and good developers.

But that's wrong.
EA makes bad games, has the worst anti-consumer mindset out of every major publisher (somehow making the likes of Capcom and Ubisoft seem humble in comparison), and have turned good (Pandemic) or average (Bioware) developers into husks of their formers selves, and absolutely atrocious developers who rush games, cut content, restrict freedom of users, and make bad games as quality isn't an issue for them, consumption and income is the only thing on their collective corporate mind, the only thing that inspires them is the greedy desire make as much money in as little effort as possible, no matter the harm or the disadvantage to the consumer, or they outright kill the developers they've obtained for little to no good reason (Rest in peace Pandemic, you were good to me).

For example, compare KoTOR to Mass Effect 3 {which I will talk about a lot as it is the epitome of EA's effect on video-games}, one is a very good game with time and effort put in, and created out of a healthy balance of artistic inspiration, and making a product for consumers, and the other is a very bad game which has no artistic inspiration, cheap story and gameplay mechanics, lore obliteration, character annihilation, next-to-no RPG elements, no innovation, important content cut for the sake of making dirty money from players on top of the full-price of the game, more content cut for the sake of making dirty money from players on top of the full-price of the game, cameos from staff of major game-reviewers (Wow I wonder why), and a half-arsed multi-player shoved in which is near-necessary to play constantly and consistently if you want the story in single-player to not be even worse than it already is.
All the "hate" towards the game is deserved, Mass Effect 3 is a game which completely represents EA's effect on the games it invests in. The "hate" isn't just because of the ending, it's because it's a bad game in it's entirety.
And yes, I mentioned the ENDING because I know how much you hate people mentioning the ENDING, because I've seen your posts and all you talk about is how you don't like how people are bashing the despicable ENDING despite not having a good argument against it.

EA is also the biggest proponent of intrusive DRM in the industry. Origin is impossible to defend without sounding completely absurd.
Even before Origin, it was SecuROM. Remember Spore? Not only was that a fantastic game before EA scrapped a large portion of the game (nearly the entirety of it) to replace it with shallower gameplay to attract more customers such as children, ruining Will Wright's dream game, it also had an illegal form of DRM on the disk. It was implemented to stop piracy, but it's usage directly contributed to the massive piracy of Spore, because nobody wants SecuROM on their PC. Also the game was terrible, I regret paying actual money for it, it wasn't worth a fraction of it's retail value. Both it's extreme DRM and abysmal quality were the reasons it was pirated to hell and back.

And to the people saying "But yeaaaah, what about Dead Space, The Sims, FIFA" ect ect, what about them? Dead Space was good, EA had little input, I don't have any complaints with two, but three has completely casualised and ruined the future of the series, it's pretty much Lost Planet mixed with Resident Evil, plus a crazy amount of day-one DLC. It's a generic action game in the snow with more DLC than there should be in a whole series. The Sims 3 has a huge amount of content cut from the game that was in previous iterations, and have been put back in expensive and numerous DLC, another attempt to leech money from consumers, and FIFA? Really? No further comment.
I would talk about Crysis 3 but acknowledging it makes me sad.
And I don't doubt that EA has paid off Metacritic "reviewers" in the SLIGHTEST.
Compare the user-reviews to the "professional" (Oh lawd, that word) reviews.
Metacritic is a hilariously bad source for how well received video games and video game companies are.

Defending the actions and the tactics of EA is completely detrimental to advancement in the industry. Argue with me all you want, you cannot assert the EA has done any justifiable or acceptable actions without making yourself seem silly.

If none of this even feathers your stance on EA, just look at the developers that have been severely crippled or outright killed by EA. It's a sad and extensive list of companies that were in their prime.
It's amazing the harm that EA has done to the industry, and it's unnerving to know how much harm they'll most likely do before they've gone bankrupt.

JazzJack2:

Lily Venus:
In the end, all of the whining about EA doesn't change the fact that EA knows good games and good developers.

You're joking right? EA are a bunch of clueless hacks who have no idea what a good game dev looks like, if they did they would have left Westwood alone.

The evidence found in their common publication of games people like that are well regarded shows that they do, in fact, have a knack for it. And I lament the loss of Westwood as much as anyone who loved Command and Conquer - that doesn't mean I'm privy to any of the information involved in making that call. There could be a host of reasons why Westwood met it's eventual fate - anything from personality conflicts, loss of key staff to other opportunities, structure inefficiencies. Lots of perfectly good and sensible reasons need to be discarded before you jump to "they're stupid or they hate good things".

I could waste my time tearing apart that rant built out of pretentiousness, arrogance, thick-headedness, and ignorance...

...or I could go play Mass Effect 3, remind myself of why I consider it to easily be one of the best games that I've ever played, and laugh at the people who take a fit over me thinking that way.

It's a hard choice, but Mass Effect 3 has more people whose heads explode. XD

Lily Venus:

...or I could go play Mass Effect 3, remind myself of why I consider it to easily be one of the best games that I've ever played...

Have you played many games? I guess not.

Lily Venus:
I could waste my time tearing apart that rant...

No you couldn't.

Lily Venus:
I could waste my time tearing apart that rant built out of pretentiousness, arrogance, thick-headedness, and ignorance...

Prove how I am exhibiting any of those traits, because right now you've just chosen the ad hominem cop-out instead of validating yourself.
For someone so eager to call out the "trolls", you can't handle an actual debate without resorting to crudely misunderstood words and insults, can you?

Lily Venus:
...or I could go play Mass Effect 3, remind myself of why I consider it to easily be one of the best games that I've ever played, and laugh at the people who take a fit over me thinking that way.

But yes, "play Mass Effect 3", and when you get to the crayola trinary bonanza, think of me won't you?

Back on topic, I'm surprised Microsoft has come second place, I assumed they were doing badly in the last few years, maybe not financially, but I didn't realise any Microsoft exclusive has been rated well by any game reviewers.

Lily Venus:
I could waste my time tearing apart that rant built out of pretentiousness, arrogance, thick-headedness, and ignorance...

Oh, the irony.

Lily Venus:
...or I could go play Mass Effect 3, remind myself of why I consider it to easily be one of the best games that I've ever played, and laugh at the people who take a fit over me thinking that way.

It's a hard choice, but Mass Effect 3 has more people whose heads explode. XD

And this ladies and gentlemen is how mediocrity won.

I would be embarrassed in your place. Or I guess I wouldn't. Because if I were like you, I would also be happy to pay a ridiculous amount of money for a mediocre and deeply flawed product from an even more flawed company.

Well, whaddya know, you publish good games and you get named publisher of the year.

Shocking, I know.

Actually thinking about it, I can't think of a single good game Ea has published with in the past year or 2.

Andy Shandy:
Well, whaddya know, you publish good games and you get named publisher of the year.

Shocking, I know.

I would suggest watching the TB video, the criteria used was very vague subjective and could have been easily manipulated by metacritic.
Its stupid and undeserved but I don't care, metacritic has no impact on my decisions whatsoever. I still believe that EA is a bad company and I haven't bought an EA title in two years.

Maybe its about time that gamers set up their own independent review board to evaluate games, developers, publishers and their merits. It would save people a lot of headaches.

JazzJack2:

Lily Venus:

...or I could go play Mass Effect 3, remind myself of why I consider it to easily be one of the best games that I've ever played...

Have you played many games? I guess not.

Get over yourself. I, along with most people I've talked to, loved Mass Effect 3.

Realitycrash:

ThriKreen:

Realitycrash:
My only issue with this is that Metacritic seem to confuse developers with publishers. If the games EA publish come within a certain score, it's due to EA's developers, and not EA.

And yet if a game does poorly, its due to EA, not the developer.

Really? Because those who claim that either have valid reasons (the developer rushed the game, or there was a lot of corporate meddling) or they are just ranting without any base for their arguments.

I'm pointing out the double standard.

The developer is the darling baby on a pedestal and can't be at fault for anything at all, it must be due to the horrible, horrible publishers.

I'm trying to be sarcastic but probably failing at it given the whole written nature of things.

Haefulz:

JazzJack2:

Lily Venus:

...or I could go play Mass Effect 3, remind myself of why I consider it to easily be one of the best games that I've ever played...

Have you played many games? I guess not.

Get over yourself. I, along with most people I've talked to, loved Mass Effect 3.

A lot of people like scat that doesn't mean it's anything more than shitting on yourself.

ThriKreen:

Realitycrash:

ThriKreen:

And yet if a game does poorly, its due to EA, not the developer.

Really? Because those who claim that either have valid reasons (the developer rushed the game, or there was a lot of corporate meddling) or they are just ranting without any base for their arguments.

I'm pointing out the double standard.

The developer is the darling baby on a pedestal and can't be at fault for anything at all, it must be due to the horrible, horrible publishers.

I'm trying to be sarcastic but probably failing at it given the whole written nature of things.

It's most likely because we don't WANT developers to be guilty, because that means admitting that those we love that make our games aren't perfect, and that there might be more shit ahead of us.
And, how often do we get to see actual facts or even people claim that the fault was with the developer, and not the publisher?
The only situation I can recall is when the developer and the publisher are the same (Valve, SquareEnix).

JazzJack2:

Haefulz:

JazzJack2:

Have you played many games? I guess not.

Get over yourself. I, along with most people I've talked to, loved Mass Effect 3.

A lot of people like scat that doesn't mean it's anything more than shitting on yourself.

This doesn't change my point.

Haefulz:

JazzJack2:

Haefulz:

Get over yourself. I, along with most people I've talked to, loved Mass Effect 3.

A lot of people like scat that doesn't mean it's anything more than shitting on yourself.

You're a terrible troll.

'He disagrees with me! h-he must be a troll right?'

Dansen:

Andy Shandy:
Well, whaddya know, you publish good games and you get named publisher of the year.

Shocking, I know.

I would suggest watching the TB video, the criteria used was very vague subjective and could have been easily manipulated by metacritic.
Its stupid and undeserved but I don't care, metacritic has no impact on my decisions whatsoever. I still believe that EA is a bad company and I haven't bought an EA title in two years.

Maybe its about time that gamers set up their own independent review board to evaluate games, developers, publishers and their merits. It would save people a lot of headaches.

I did watch the TB video. And while the scoring system is incredibly stupid, I still think EA probably would've been high up there anyway with a normal scoring system.

And to be fair, no matter what major publisher won it, people would complain about it anyway.

JazzJack2:

Haefulz:

JazzJack2:

A lot of people like scat that doesn't mean it's anything more than shitting on yourself.

You're a terrible troll.

'He disagrees with me! h-he must be a troll right?'

Dude, look at your reply I originally quoted. I don't give a shit if you dislike Mass Effect 3. I'm very happy see people with differing opinions, but you were trashing a dude who said he thought ME3 was one of the best games he's ever played. Your comment about scat doesn't change my point: People like different stuff, get over it.

Wow, it didn't take long for this thread to go down the shitter.


OT: I guess that's what happens when you buy out all the companies everyone likes, and force people to buy games published by EA instead...

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here