Battlefield 3 Devs Are All About The Review Scores

[Vault101]

Wow, invite all the whining about people "ruining" a metascore.

I have news. Sales don't determine how good or bad a game is, but it's an outright lie to try and say sales are not as important as reviews. All game companies are for profit. Meaning that making art falls a distant second to making money. I hate this kind of thing, if for no other reason than we have all been burned by reviews, professional or otherwise. And if a game gets a fantastic review, and it's sales suck, it's because you have made a great game no one want to play, so that is a fail. I seem to recall a company called Team Bondi, who made a game that did pretty darn good in the review area, but sales sucked horribly, and now they are not around anymore.

sales keep stuidios open sure.

but with anything, not just games but films alot of the times...the stuff that didnt sell well can be real gems, and turn into cult classics

planescape torment, beyond good and evil (Im guessing) shadow of the colusses/ico

 

[Zyxzy]

Eh, I think both review scores and sales are imperfect indicators of quality. They're usually reliable, but sometimes they muck-up.

how does somone muck up their own opinion?

its like if I buy a COD game, becuase it has a score of 9, yet i hate it because its brown..shooty and a pathetic single player....would it be fair of me to turn around and acuse ALOT of reveiws of being "wrong"?

no, if I bought COD then I should have known what i was getting into, its not hard thease days we have the internet (and no Im not applying this to DA2, I know why you didnt like it)

I meant that reviews and sales are not always perfect at being a metric by which to judge the quality of a game.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

Metascore is a cancer on the review industry.

The assumptions involved about the uniformity of the scales used to rate games by different individuals and their independent uses of those scales are embarassingly dumb. (And let's not even talk about the user review system where people regularly attempt to skew the rating rather than rating honestly.)

 

[PeePantz]

what WAS the probelm? I thourght that game was supoes to be good, though I havnt played it yet

The whole development was a mess and took way too long. The delays were ridiculous and it took Rockstar finally taking over in order for the game to get released. If that hadn't of happened, the game would still probably be in development. During this, they managed to thoroughly piss off Rockstar and basically told them off, severing their relationship. The game became a giant money pit and not even godly sales numbers would be able to Save Team Bondi. The game started development in 2005 and was originally supposed to have been released in 2008. Being a new studio with no prior games, it was a given that they would go under with that development time and being dropped by their publisher.

As far as the game is concerned, it is good and worth checking out.

 

[TheDooD]

Oh man, oh man the slam "reviews" are gonna happen. Better get the popcorn ready everybody.

 

[Vault101]

what WAS the probelm? I thourght that game was supoes to be good, though I havnt played it yet

The whole development was a mess and took way too long. The delays were ridiculous and it took Rockstar finally taking over in order for the game to get released. If that hadn't of happened, the game would still probably be in development. During this, they managed to thoroughly piss off Rockstar and basically told them off, severing their relationship. The game became a giant money pit and not even godly sales numbers would be able to Save Team Bondi. The game started development in 2005 and was originally supposed to have been released in 2008. Being a new studio with no prior games, it was a given that they would go under with that development time and being dropped by their publisher.

As far as the game is concerned, it is good and worth checking out.

ohhh right, yeah I was a little confused as i just assumed LA was a rockstar title

anyway thats good, I thourght you were going to kill the game for me..I dont need my hope damaged any more , thats for the info

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Battlefield 3 producer Patrick Bach believes reviews - and Metatscores in particular - are a better indication of a game's quality than sales.

And he believes right, at least if you had to pick one or the other.

"You can argue that game quality has to do with sales, but it's not equal," Bach said, in an interview with Eurogamer [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-10-24-battlefield-3-interview-rolling-the-dice-interview]. "You have to have enough game to reach sales. But it doesn't mean if you have a 95 rated game that would sell the most copies. An 85 rated game could sell way more copies than a 95 rated game, which is sad for the developer, because the developer then gets a receipt on that: you made a great game, and then the sales tell you that you didn't make a great game."

It's a hard point to argue with. Going by sales data: Duke Nukem Forever is pretty good, Ubisoft's execrable Imagine: Babyz is better than Okami and Call of Duty: Black Ops is the best game ever made. I'm not sure which part of that sentence is the most awful. Bach doesn't believe direct user feedback is much use either.

"The other thing you have is consumer feedback, as in forum posts. You can't use that because it's mostly people being very upset with stuff. It's not very often you have a thread on how awesome something is. Well you get that sometimes with videos and stuff, but general threads are mostly complaints."

Again, I agree. I can't remember the exact numbers, but people are roughly four times more likely to voice a negative opinion of something than a positive one. And, if Youtube taught us anything, it's that if you give people a sliding scale for rating quality, it generally ends up as a pile of perfect scores versus a pile of abysmal scores because opinions almost automatically veer towards the extreme when you're online.

So what metric does DICE go by?

"You could argue that reviews are the most objective feedback you can get as a game developer," he said. He then went on to confirm that Battlefield 3 does have a Metascore [http://www.metacritic.com/] target, but wouldn't reveal what it was. Considering Battlefield 3 has garnered a very positive response thus far, with the all-important numerical scores hovering around the nine-and-up range, it seems unlikely the game will fail to meet its targets. That being said, the veracity of Battlefield 3's current Metascore has been questioned after publications in Norway accused publisher EA of cherry picking reviewers [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/113707-EA-Accused-of-Gaming-Battlefield-3-Review-Scores] last week.

Source: Eurogamer [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-10-24-battlefield-3-interview-rolling-the-dice-interview]


Permalink

I guess the bottom line is that a crew for a high-scored game will ultimately be more valued than the crew for a high-selling game. In the former, it's often just a case of bad marketing. In the latter, it's often just a fluke, or a legacy that carries the sales (ie, DNF).

 

[Vicarious Reality]

Hahahaha, oh wow.
Yeah, i buy games because some dude tells me to

 

[Kopikatsu]

"The other thing you have is consumer feedback, as in forum posts. You can't use that because it's mostly people being very upset with stuff. It's not very often you have a thread on how awesome something is. Well you get that sometimes with videos and stuff, but general threads are mostly complaints."

But isnt that good? It means that the community noticed some flaws in the game that can be improved, did he really wanted a bunch of guys just saying that the game is the second coming of Jesus and leave it as it is?

Not really. I've been on many gaming forums in my time (That includes EA's), and threads about games generally are just bitching. Not coherent suggestions or constructive criticism, just plain bitching.

Vocal minority plays a large part in that. People who are content with the game don't have much to say about it. People who find problems with it have alot to say about it. So you'll be hearing from the people complaining much more than you'll hear from the people who liked it.

And he didn't say that he only wanted praise on the forums, just that you don't go on forums if you're looking for anything but a seething mass of rage with maybe a small gem or two hidden in there.

 

[Baresark]

Wow, invite all the whining about people "ruining" a metascore.

I have news. Sales don't determine how good or bad a game is, but it's an outright lie to try and say sales are not as important as reviews. All game companies are for profit. Meaning that making art falls a distant second to making money. I hate this kind of thing, if for no other reason than we have all been burned by reviews, professional or otherwise. And if a game gets a fantastic review, and it's sales suck, it's because you have made a great game no one want to play, so that is a fail. I seem to recall a company called Team Bondi, who made a game that did pretty darn good in the review area, but sales sucked horribly, and now they are not around anymore.

sales keep stuidios open sure.

but with anything, not just games but films alot of the times...the stuff that didnt sell well can be real gems, and turn into cult classics

planescape torment, beyond good and evil (Im guessing) shadow of the colusses/ico

I agree completely. I'm not saying that studios don't make good games, but most studios worry first and foremost about sales. The guy from EA can say what he wants, but they only care about sales. They aren't interested so much in making a good game as they are in making a game that sells. Unfortunately, the games you mentioned are anomalies in the drive for profits. Not that for profit games are bad, but they don't ever reach that same level as the games you mentioned.

 

[Vault101]

Wow, invite all the whining about people "ruining" a metascore.

I have news. Sales don't determine how good or bad a game is, but it's an outright lie to try and say sales are not as important as reviews. All game companies are for profit. Meaning that making art falls a distant second to making money. I hate this kind of thing, if for no other reason than we have all been burned by reviews, professional or otherwise. And if a game gets a fantastic review, and it's sales suck, it's because you have made a great game no one want to play, so that is a fail. I seem to recall a company called Team Bondi, who made a game that did pretty darn good in the review area, but sales sucked horribly, and now they are not around anymore.

sales keep stuidios open sure.

but with anything, not just games but films alot of the times...the stuff that didnt sell well can be real gems, and turn into cult classics

planescape torment, beyond good and evil (Im guessing) shadow of the colusses/ico

I agree completely. I'm not saying that studios don't make good games, but most studios worry first and foremost about sales. The guy from EA can say what he wants, but they only care about sales. They aren't interested so much in making a good game as they are in making a game that sells. Unfortunately, the games you mentioned are anomalies in the drive for profits. Not that for profit games are bad, but they don't ever reach that same level as the games you mentioned.

they were risk takers, somtimes taking risks pays off...and somtimes it doesnt,

but if the end product is good enough then I guess it still good that it exists..even if it doesnt sell, and if your even more lucky then it may actually pay off in the end, with a long waited seaquel or re-release

but yeah, I dont think profits matter to the actual consumer all that much....other than ocasionally "hmm this seems ot be rahter popualr...mabye Ill check it out" or the fact that you want your favorite game to do well

 

[Catalyst6]

They only say that because they know most likely BF3 won't outsell MW3. Though it can go both ways absolutely. Its a combination of both, not just one or the other.

Their respective qualities aside, I don't think BF3 has a chance of outselling MW3. Each COD game has outsold it's BF competitor by about 4:1.

This, this, a thousand times this.

I read through the article thinking "Hmm. Sounds like *someone* isn't very confident about their sales".

 

[Awexsome]

PC looks to be strong as expected... but forgive me for being very doubtful that they'll even win metacritic score against MW3 for the consoles. The PC reviews are up but the first console review is worse than any of the 14 or so PC reviews.

As for sales... who cares? So long as you make money I'd be happy in their shoes. Yeah you have that nagging want be the best (EA going to very extreme lengths to satisfy that nag) but there's no shame in still doing well but selling as much as CoD.

 

[marurder]

Is this guy serious? Geez, when was the last game under 60%? Almost anything can get over that number. It isn't a reasonable gauge anymore. A better way is to measure the forums and count "happy posts" (fanboy?) vs "unhappy posts" (older fanboy?). This guy straight out said - fans shouldn't be listened to. (Didn't buy the game - but never bought any of them in either COD or BF - so not bias)

 

[Formica Archonis]

But the sheer amount of flak Jim Sterling got for giving Gears 3 an 8.5 (which was quite a good review, and a high score for his scale) indicates that making Metacritic numbers your sole ranking is trash.

Reminds me of Adam Sessler's "Fuck Metacritic" speech. They took his star rating at the end of a review and turned it into a percentage and posted it on their site, and it dragged down the average of the game, which got the devs VERY mad at him. When he complained to Metacritic that you can't just normalize the denominator of his "x stars" review to their percentage scale and expect it work, they told him he was wrong, that they understood his rating system better than he did.

I didn't agree with that whole speech, but it was sad to see a reviewer get in trouble because:
1) he had the ONE outlying review that dragged the whole average down badly, because Metacritic's understanding of statistics ends at the AVERAGE function in Excel;
2) his number was tweaked by someone else to fit in their system without his knowledge;
3) no one read the text review attached to that number;
4) the publisher and developer take Metacritic as the word of God;
5) Metacritic takes Metacritic as the word of God.

 

[vivster]

Wow, invite all the whining about people "ruining" a metascore.

I have news. Sales don't determine how good or bad a game is, but it's an outright lie to try and say sales are not as important as reviews. All game companies are for profit. Meaning that making art falls a distant second to making money. I hate this kind of thing, if for no other reason than we have all been burned by reviews, professional or otherwise. And if a game gets a fantastic review, and it's sales suck, it's because you have made a great game no one want to play, so that is a fail. I seem to recall a company called Team Bondi, who made a game that did pretty darn good in the review area, but sales sucked horribly, and now they are not around anymore.

you have to see that he is talking in a way other league than normal developers
they have partnered wit EA and Activision and are beyond the selling part so they know that the game will definitely sell well
that covered there are only the scores that matter after that
because good scores help sale even more future games for gamers who didn't play the previous games


speaking of that...
now that BF3 is finally done get your asses back to Mirror's Edge you lazy bastards

 

[Sectan]

Ill give BF3 one thing. Adult Swim had a commercial and I swear to god they used the voice actors of Spike and Jet from Cowboy Bebop. That was pretty cool.

 

[Warstratigier]

Thing is no matter how much I see the reviews, if I see too much of something over and over I will eventually reach a stopping point. For COD: stopped at MW4 For BF: stopping at BF:BC2, could buy BF3 but it sure ain't going to be right away. I got my sights set on other games right now.

 

[Vrach]

They only say that because they know most likely BF3 won't outsell MW3. Though it can go both ways absolutely. Its a combination of both, not just one or the other.

Their respective qualities aside, I don't think BF3 has a chance of outselling MW3. Each COD game has outsold it's BF competitor by about 4:1.

I'm confused, which Battlefield games came out since Modern Warfare franchise started? I think you're confusing Battlefield with Battlefield: Bad Company - there's quite a difference.

Moreover, this is the strongest Battlefield's come on in ages and they've got everything they need to beat CoD, including maps made mostly for infantry combat.

I agree that it's doubtful BF3 will outsell MW3, but it's not an impossibility - and the difference will definitely not be ridiculously high.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Oh I see what PR bull you are trying to pull there.
And I'll crap my pants laughing when MW3 beats them on scores aswell