http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/07/...ames-industry?Let’s say there’s a new film out in a few weeks that was filmed under the following unusual contractual condition: if the Rotten Tomatoes rating isn’t above 80% after a week or two, the writer and director don’t get paid royalties. Or say a new band signs to a record label, and the label refuses to pay a signing bonus unless their first album gets 5 stars in NME, the Guardian and Kerrang as well as an 85+ on Pitchfork.
Imagine how patently absurd this would be – and then reflect that this is exactly the situation that some game developers find themselves in. Metacritic, the review aggregator that collects scores from major sites, newspapers and magazines and swirls them together with blogs and smaller outlets to create an average number and give you an at-a-glance assessment, has become such a powerful force in the games industry that it doesn’t just impact the nature of games reviews, it directly influences development and marketing, as well as how developers are paid.
An interesting article.
I've often found myself in a games store, using Metacritic on my cellphone to decide which game I should buy. Games are expensive (especially on console) so I never take the risk of buying a game which scores below 70, and if I'm making a choice between several games, I'll usually pick the one with the highest Metacritic score.
And I do find that I consult Metacritic scores for games far more often than I do for TV, movies or music.
What's your view of aggregate sites like Metacritic? How much importance do you place on these scores when deciding to buy a game?