I always find it so odd that people say TSW wasn't advertised well - I've seen, and continue to see plenty of adds for it. Really to the point where I'm tired of seeing their adds on Youtube at least. Of course, this could also be because my interest in the game and the things I tend to view on the web caused me to be more exposed to their adds.
Anyways, 72/100 may or may not be a good score. What we think on that matter isn't important, because it was obviously viewed as "low" by investors and developers.
There is definitely a need for a review aggregator - this is a tool that is useful to the consumer. The problem, however, is the Metacritic seems to have some issues with how they translate scores to their system (tons of articles out there on this), and much more importantly, what reviews to include (and weigh differently) in the aggregate. As an example, if you were running the site would you include a review where the author admits he only played the Beta? How about a review where the author very blatantly fails to understand the basic principles of the game and essentially says it sucks because it isn't WoW? Metacritic includes stuff like this, because they themselves don't quality-control their input beyond certain sites weighing more.
Of course, this brings up the question: SHOULD Metacritic, seeing as how the industry places so much value in its scores, be more active in determining what reviews count towards the aggregate, or does that destroy the integrity of the score?
Also, I think a lot of the low scores for TSW might also be a result of reviewers who felt burned by SWTOR.
Anyways, 72/100 may or may not be a good score. What we think on that matter isn't important, because it was obviously viewed as "low" by investors and developers.
There is definitely a need for a review aggregator - this is a tool that is useful to the consumer. The problem, however, is the Metacritic seems to have some issues with how they translate scores to their system (tons of articles out there on this), and much more importantly, what reviews to include (and weigh differently) in the aggregate. As an example, if you were running the site would you include a review where the author admits he only played the Beta? How about a review where the author very blatantly fails to understand the basic principles of the game and essentially says it sucks because it isn't WoW? Metacritic includes stuff like this, because they themselves don't quality-control their input beyond certain sites weighing more.
Of course, this brings up the question: SHOULD Metacritic, seeing as how the industry places so much value in its scores, be more active in determining what reviews count towards the aggregate, or does that destroy the integrity of the score?
Also, I think a lot of the low scores for TSW might also be a result of reviewers who felt burned by SWTOR.