Naughty Dog Expected The Last of Us to "Tank"

[Something Amyss]

Getting below 85 on Metacritic means the game tanked?

I'm pretty sure in gaming terms, an 85 is like an F. Worse, an F minus. And F minus Minus. A M, or a Q even.

Somehow, I'm reminded of "Tomb Raider sold millions of copies and outsold every other installment in the series, what a flop".

I think that was more scapegoating. Didn't their FF sales suck or something?

And here they provide you all the eveidence you need that they dont know what word "Tank" means.

Or they have an awareness of how video games are treated. 9/10 has been a "bad" score for a couple years now, at least with major releases.

 

[Uhuru N'Uru]

Getting below 85 on Metacritic means the game tanked?

Depends on what the contract with the publisher is.

There have been many cases where developers' post-release bonus payout is dependent on metacritic scores. So if getting below 85 would've meant they didn't get that huge-chunk of post-release bonus money, it may well have been considered a total flop by the dev team themselves even if the rest of the world wouldn't really think of it like that.

Yup, I remember something about Obsidian and New Vegas with that.

Suddenly I'm reminded of how ridiculous publisher's expectations are a lot of the time.

Yet New Vegas is the only example ever used and after that, publicised example, any dev studio that agrees to such stupid terms, doesn't deserve to get paid. Publishers can tank a score, much easier than a dev can, just by setting an immovable release date. Look at Skyrim's Marketing led date of 11/11/11, that was never going to be changed, no matter what the quality of the game was.

Getting below 85 on Metacritic means the game tanked?

I'm pretty sure in gaming terms, an 85 is like an F. Worse, an F minus. And F minus Minus. A M, or a Q even.

Somehow, I'm reminded of "Tomb Raider sold millions of copies and outsold every other installment in the series, what a flop".

I think that was more scapegoating. Didn't their FF sales suck or something?

And here they provide you all the eveidence you need that they dont know what word "Tank" means.

Or they have an awareness of how video games are treated. 9/10 has been a "bad" score for a couple years now, at least with major releases.

All the evidence you need on why any numerical scoring system is stupid and pointless. Nothing as complex as a games, quality, style and gameplay, can be described by a single number. Worse, nobody uses the same criteria to reach their number.
Metacritic "averages" said numbers, based on a secret formula. It's the worst of them all, as it's criteria are a mystery.

This is most clearly shown by the recent Arkham Knight Scores
63% from reviewers, they assess a game in isolated features and give an averaged score, obscuring each specific issues impact.
16% from users who assess the entire package on it's release condition, where one bad feature will drag the entire score down.

Reviwers scores obscure individual issues in favour of a "fairer" overall score. A when it's patched, score for all time approach.
Users scores are all about, can it be even run on my PC as it's released. Purely and simply a release day condition judgement.

Both approaches have merit, but the simple fact is that Metacritic, by showing both, is admitting a single score can never define any game, not even as a quick summary.

 

[Strazdas]

And here they provide you all the eveidence you need that they dont know what word "Tank" means.

Or they have an awareness of how video games are treated. 9/10 has been a "bad" score for a couple years now, at least with major releases.

As much as i find this image [http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/0/1070/1998169-1315159660139.png] entertaining, you have to admit that a metacritic score of 85 is far from being "bad" score. For example other games with Metascore of 85:
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six
The Talos Principle
Dragon Age: Inquisition
Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars
Hotline Miami
South Park: The Stick of Truth
Dark Souls: Prepare to Die Edition
Medieval II: Total War Kingdoms
The Walking Dead

all critically acclaimed games that were highly successful and some even considered best in their genre.

 

[Dragonlayer]

I like to think that right up until the moment of release, there was one diehard pessimist constantly moaning that all their non-Crash Bandicoot projects were a total waste of time and money, and that the future of gaming needed TNT crate platforming.

Also: 'We'll be lucky to scrape by with an 85 Metacritic.'

I know modern stupidity has stripped everything that isn't a 100% cured-Cancer perfect score of all meaning, but come the fuck on! This is like complaining that you'll just barely make a "Excellent!" grade!

 

[Something Amyss]

All the evidence you need on why any numerical scoring system is stupid and pointless.

You know, this level of problem does not exist for any other form of entertainment media, so I don't think it's the numerical system that's the problem.

It's like watching a drunk driver careen into a busy intersection and saying "this is the problem with anti-lock brakes."

As much as i find this image [http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/0/1070/1998169-1315159660139.png] entertaining, you have to admit that a metacritic score of 85 is far from being "bad" score.

Depends on who you're dealing with. Gamers? Not so much. Everyone else? Apparently.

I mean, you try and give counter examples, but all those games I followed except Hotline Miami had people raging about how awful the scores they were getting were. And HM is still indie, so it's not the same standard as is applied to the majors. I can't believe you're unfamiliar with this in action.

 

[Uhuru N'Uru]

All the evidence you need on why any numerical scoring system is stupid and pointless.

You know, this level of problem does not exist for any other form of entertainment media, so I don't think it's the numerical system that's the problem.

It's like watching a drunk driver careen into a busy intersection and saying "this is the problem with anti-lock brakes."

Except no other media has numerical scores, linked to reviews. Movies don't get rated by number scores, it's widely accepted that it doesn't give any indication of comparative worth. Yet games which are even more varied than movies get numbered. It's a meaningless exercise and the fact publishers tend to rely on it, is just an admission they know nothing at all about games.

It's like after every E3 theres a spate of who won posts and vids. It's not a competition, no one can win it, never are actual finished games shown publicly if at all. Even things like Game of the Year are subjective and have no relation to the scores they got.

 

[Ariseishirou]

Well that explains why it kind of played like ass.

Lots of people loved the story enough for that not to matter, though. There's a lesson to be learned from this, somewhere.

 

[Strazdas]

As much as i find this image [http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/0/1070/1998169-1315159660139.png] entertaining, you have to admit that a metacritic score of 85 is far from being "bad" score.

Depends on who you're dealing with. Gamers? Not so much. Everyone else? Apparently.

I mean, you try and give counter examples, but all those games I followed except Hotline Miami had people raging about how awful the scores they were getting were. And HM is still indie, so it's not the same standard as is applied to the majors. I can't believe you're unfamiliar with this in action.

There will always be fans who think their game should be 100 and not a single point less. Hardly an argument for these games being unpopular or bad. Im familiar with this, i just think it proves the exact opposite of what you claim. If people are complaining about the game not being rated high enough, this means that it is worth more, meaning they think its a great game, thus proving me saying that great games get 85 ratings.

85 is far more important on steam than metacritic anyway. On steam after 85% approval rate you get the "overwhelmingly positive" ranking (as opposed to "possitive" before that) and that was shown to significantly increase sales. But Naughty Dog hardly has to worry about steam.

 

[Something Amyss]

Except no other media has numerical scores, linked to reviews.

Except movies and music. And hell, even in music reviews, where I was "encouraged" to be positive about music I didn't like or see any worth in, a 3/5 was an acceptable score.

Movies don't get rated by number scores, it's widely accepted that it doesn't give any indication of comparative worth. Yet games which are even more varied than movies get numbered. It's a meaningless exercise and the fact publishers tend to rely on it, is just an admission they know nothing at all about games.

That gamers and the games industry take it as an indication of comparative worth goes right back to what I said: this has nothing to do with the scores and everything to do with the people receiving them. Publishers likely wouldn't take such a heavy interest in scores if gamers didn't take them so damn seriously in the first place. The ties to metacritic scores post-dates score inflation by years and years, and for the most part post-dates Metacritic as a general rule. That it's specific to gaming seems to have more to do with gaming culture.

And honestly, I can't help but see this as a reflection of the exact same attitude that leads gamers to throw large, site-wide tantrums when a critic doesn't like the game they like.

 

[DerangedHobo]

- Famous Voice Actor(s)
- Uncharted Game play
- An Oscar Bait Story which tried to be deep but fell on its face.
- "Expected to Tank"

Riighhhhht, stop being so self-congratulatory Naughty Dog.

 

[Rozalia1]

Not a surprise about the rating thing. Gaming fans are much like wrestling fans. If a game gets a "bad score" or a wrestler loses one match they are "buried" in a lot of people's mind.