Advertisement
Moore: Metacritic's irrelevant to Wii News
Wii News by Oli Welsh
EA Sports boss Peter Moore has revealed that he doesn't consider Metacritic ratings to be a relevant indication of quality or potential sales for Wii games.
Although Metacritic is widely studied and linked to game sales by publishing execuitves, Moore told Gamasutra that he'd found that Wii titles could sell multiple millions with Metacritic ratings in the low 70s, or none at all. Instead, he's circumventing review sites and looking at direct consumer feedback.
"I absolutely guarantee you, the thing we're watching most closely now is things like Amazon - and I'll go look at women's magazines that have powerful websites, and then we look at what we call 'mommy bloggers'," he says.
"That's where those people go for their information. They are not going to Metacritic. They don't know Metacritic exists."
He referenced the stellar launch of EA Sports Active despite disinterest from games review sites, and delivered a gentle slap to reviewers for failing to prioritise Wii releases.
"The thing is with the Wii, it seems to be for the gaming sites, it's the last platform they review," said Moore.
"It takes a time to get an actual review score. I would pretty much guarantee that just about every Wii game ships without a Metacritic rating because [reviewers] haven't got around to it or they're not interested in reviewing it."
If Wii games can sell independently of poor or late reviews, Moore feels, the company needs to change its emphasis. "So what truly is the value of a review on a Wii game? Now, yes, you still want to get the best possible review score you can get but I think it's less critical to the success of a game on the Wii than it maybe is on Xbox360 or PS3."
That's us told.
Advertisement
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Comments: 1-49 of 49 in total
Poster
|
Ninja_Tino
11/06/09 @ 08:20
+9
Yeah but the majority of people on this planet are thick and their opinions mean nothing. I'll stick with eurogamer, thanks.
|
|
kangarootoo
11/06/09 @ 08:25
-1
He is quite right.
@Ninja_Tino I think unfortunately, your statement also applies to all of us. |
|
0
With their overly harsh reviewing atm? It's always good to get a second opinion, i always do :)
I see where he's coming from, because of the wide spectrum of review scores from many different sites the average isn't usually indicative of what the final product is worth. If i look at metacritic, i usually take both site ratings and user ratings into account. But even this is tainted by fanboys and zealots… |
|
+2
People read stuff that is relevant to them and their lives; No surprises there then.
Moore does have a point though in the way Wii titles are treated as second-class by most review sites, especially ultra-casual titles. What bugs me is the way that in most Wii reviews there's an undertone that the writer really feels that the whole enterprise is somehow below them, that they'd rather be playing/reviewing the latest hardcore title on the 360 instead. Now that may be true (for them), but its of little use the people who are actually buying these titles. |
|
0
i often find that for all games its best to go by forum opinions moreso than reviews, and this is especially true when it comes to Wii games, as many reviewers don't seem to have a clue such as eurogamers resi 4 reviewer.
edit: Where was eurogamers Mushroom Men review?
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 11/06/09 @ 09:34
|
|
0
Is it just me, or does this just sound like EA are pissed off with their average metacritic score and would rather read glowing reviews from people who have barely scratched the surface of a game or have never played another game in the series/franchise before?
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 11/06/09 @ 09:39
|
|
+2
Now that may be true (for them), but its of little use the people who are actually buying these titles.
Seeing as though the type of people that buy these 'games' dont even know sites like this exist & would never pick up a games mag, why should they review the latest shovelware software & encourage sloppy game design by rating it highly because your granny will like it? The only reason any of us would read it is hopefully to get a laugh from the critical mauling they'd receive. Its not like you'd expect a Gears 2 review in Womens weekly is it? Its obvious these games arent meant for us so why should a gaming site focus on them? They still get the proper games reviewed like Wario Land, De Blob, Mad World etc. Those are the ones im interested in. Not bloody EA Sports Active or Mini game collection #22. & I think it will be the same for anyone else on this site too.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 11/06/09 @ 09:42
|
|
0
I do order a lot of things from Amazon these days and find their user reviews quite useful, for example I recently purchased a standalone Sony BDP-S350 Blu-ray player as a backup BD player to my PS3 in case it breaks down and I read many of the comments there before I made my choice. Turned out to be a good one as the player is superb and excellent value for money. Generally if something is good then it will get good feedback so it's a good source of information IMO.
Having said that, I've noticed that PC games tend to get absolutely slated if they contain DRM, which I don't think is really fair, so it's hard to know whether those games are actually good or not. DRM can be annoying I know and the install limits are unfair but, to be honest, it isn't generally something I consider when buying PC games as I only install them on one machine anyway. Metacritic and GameRankings though are a good source of professional reviews, I normally use those sites to access the links to the reviews so I can read up more information on the games. So, for me, they are useful too. |
|
SpaceMidget75
11/06/09 @ 08:49
-3
The fact is reviewers are closer to us as a demographic than some fucking dad who thought that Wii Sports Golf is great "coz you have to actually swing the club Rating: * * * * *"
Fuck off Moore. EDIT: Spolling
Edited 2 times,
most recently on 11/06/09 @ 09:56
|
|
0
Most people, regardless of demographic, don't buy on reviews anyway. For every knowledgeable gamer, there are ten who will just pick up the next GTA or Resident Evil, no matter what it scores. If they even look at reviews they just skip straight to the score, and if it doesn't agree with them they say "I liked the last one." and buy it anyway. And this is people who know the reviews exist.
|
|
0
It is my opinion that your average video game critic actuals knows what a good game is and generates scores based on that. Your average Amazon 'commentor' has only ever played Wii Sports and other mini-game games.
Thanks Pete, but I think I'll continue to trust the people that have been here since the NES days and not the people who got a Wii last christmas and think it's rad. I mean, he is basically selling "Wii games appeal to the biggest audience, therefore they must be the best!". |
|
+5
The important thing is that the punters are satisfied with their purchase.
Its not sloppy game design if it works for the target audience, regardless of how it stacks up against the "cutting-edge" of interactive entertainment. You can't reasonably compare Teletubbies to Ingmar Bergman (or more realistically Michael Bay), its a pointless exercise as they are entertainments tailored for very different markets. |
|
+1
@SpaceMidget75 - Good point.
My own parents think a good Wii game is one which gets them off the sofa so they love the sports games like bowling, tennis and golf, and even Wii Fit. They're less concerned about the actual quality of the games, strange as it may sound. I suspect that's the reason weak Wii games sell well because so long as they make use of the Wiimote then people see them as being good even if they're not. Let's be honest here, the Wii hasn't sold well on the strength of its games, it's because of the motion-sensing controller, right? All the Wii adverts I've seen cleverly show people laughing and having fun with it, something you rarely see with PS3 and Xbox 360 adverts? That tactic has worked extremely well for Nintendo but I wonder how many people use their Wiis regularly for gaming outside of social get-togethers? |
|
Mentalist(air)
11/06/09 @ 09:19
+3
Games sites review wii games with regard to their appeal to gamers. Most of the people buying the likes of EA Sports Active, though, and not the sort of gamers that will read review sites.
Peter Moore is right enough, really, for the majority of their audience. I, however, eagerly await ellie's thoughts on his rubber-band and nunchuck-strap opus. |
|
kangarootoo
11/06/09 @ 09:21
0
I think we need to look at what we mean by "strength of games". If Wii customers are very satisfied with the experience they get, that sounds like a strong game to me.
I find Moore's separation of "fun" and "best" kind of odd. Surely the most important thing is that a game is fun (by whatever means). If game X is considerably more fun to play than game Y, in which way is it not the best game of the pair? |
|
0
Is this the same Peter Moore that said "I want over 90 on Metacritic for Fifa 10!"
Sorry, but that's fucking bollocks. I reckon 1 in 10 Amazon reviews actually says something worthwhile, most of them are "It is good" or "Delivery was appalling". Talk about chopping and changing depending on how it suits you, what a tosser |
|
Mentalist(air)
11/06/09 @ 09:26
0
All the Wii adverts I've seen cleverly show people laughing and having fun with it, something you rarely see with PS3 and Xbox 360 adverts?
Oh, the times, they are a chaaange-innnn... Mind you, so like Nintendo's Wii adverts is that video that Microsoft maybe run the risk of people thinking it's for Nintendo anyway. Like all those gas board adverts with the Aardman Creature Comforts characters... that were actually meant to be for the electricity board saying how electric heating, cookers etc were better than the gas ones. If only the experssion EPIC FAIL was in common parlance in the late 80s, eh? |
|
kangarootoo
11/06/09 @ 09:28
+1
@BM
"Is this the same Peter Moore that said "I want over 90 on Metacritic for Fifa 10!" " "Talk about chopping and changing depending on how it suits you" I don't think it is beyond possibility to expect the same person to have two different opinions about two different things. Fifa is not the family friendly Wii title that he is describing in this case. Perhaps he is simply stating that two different customer bases have different requirements when considering games, and express their satisfaction or otherwise in different ways and through different forums. |
|
CHAZBIGPOTATO
11/06/09 @ 10:06
+1
"Is this the same Peter Moore that said "I want over 90 on Metacritic for Fifa 10!"
Sorry, but that's fucking bollocks. I reckon 1 in 10 Amazon reviews actually says something worthwhile, most of them are "It is good" or "Delivery was appalling". Talk about chopping and changing depending on how it suits you, what a tosser " But that is what the main demographic go by, regardless of how someone more descerning such as yourself would regard them; which is what he is saying...Calm down dear, whats the problem? Why does that make him a tosser? "Fuck off Moore." Jeez, why are so many people here so highly strung? He is talking about business, its his job... Christ alive! |
|
-5
No ratings or review sites are completely relevant because 90% of professional (lol) gaming reviewers are complete and utter idiots. However, they can be used to gain a general idea of certain games and - in the case of EA's recent effort - will offer semi-reliable information on occasion. For example, it's much easier to use GameRankings.com to find out which games are bad, as opposed to games which are genuinely superb.
Unfortunately the majority of gamers and gaming reviewers lack the skill to know which games are well designed and thus we are left with ridiculously overrated and - to some extent - underrated games on these rating websites. It is by that concept, then, that anyone whom ever uses Metacritic as a source for debate is just making themselves look idiotic. |
|
BartonFink
11/06/09 @ 10:16
+3
So reviews by children, housewives, and grannies versus reviews by professional publications and websites. Hmmm tough choice. ;)
|
|
curtlikesmeat
11/06/09 @ 10:40
0
I would imagine that something like 80% plus of people who buy Wii games don't read magazines or internet sites based on computer games. Their market is way too casual for that sort of thing and as such I can see why the big gaming internet sites aren't particularly interested - they're just catering to their readership.
Personally I've owned several Nintendo consoles over the years but am not in the least bit interested in the Wii. |
|
ShinMegami08
11/06/09 @ 11:06
-8
the gamecube 1.5 sucks... come on my commodore 64 has better graphics!!
the wiimote is just a stupid peripheral, get back to life. |
|
tomkuryakin
11/06/09 @ 11:06
+1
According to metacritic, the best PS2 game ever is Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3. No doubt it's a good game but best ever?
ICO and Shadow of the Colossus barely scrape into the top 50. |
|
0
@kangarootoo/CHAZBIGPOTATO
What I'm saying is that he'll quite happily take metacritics opinion when it suits him, and the fact that there are a lot of poor Wii titles which reflects in poor scores on metacritic. My point is that perhaps EA (not neglecting other companies) effectively see the Wii as a cash cow for porting a PS2 title and sticking some poor motion controls on it, rather than putting the time and effort in to develop something a bit more worthwhile. I'm not saying this is just EA, it's across the board. I'm also not saying I wouldn't buy any EA Wii titles, I'm very much looking forward to Tiger Woods. And as for Moore talking about his business, what do you think the reviews on Metacritic are? They're from people who review games for a living |
|
MightyMouse
11/06/09 @ 11:15
0
Yup, entirely agree. As others have said you can't necessarily treat every game as attempting to appeal in the same way and that's where Wii reviews tend to fall down.
I think as a site Eurogamer probably wants to appeal to the casual audience too. They do use the internet you know. |
|
kangarootoo
11/06/09 @ 11:34
+1
@BM
The difference between metacritic and amazon reviews (as you kind of point out yourself) is that one is based on reviews written by reviewers, and the other is just customers who bought the product saying what they thought of it. Amazon reviews aren't really reviews, as they aren't written as critiques designed to infom others. Perhaps Moore is just saying that for one type of product, reviews will tell you what to improve upon, but for another type of product they simply don't tell you what the customer thinks is important. You see, a review might well be a more detailed critiue of a Wii game, but it might also overlook some things that are key to customer enjoyment and equally it might focus on stuff that a lot of purchasers simply don't care about. The key thing in making any game is to know what it is that your target audience thinks is important. A good reviewer should take that into account when they write their review also, but why not go straight to the horse's mouth (as well, if not only). |
|
0
@kangarootoo
I see your point, but for me what one person regards as a good game could well get slated by the mass public. I guess it's the same for anything though. For me it just reads as though the games that EA are willing to spend a great deal of time and money on, Moore is happy to use metacritic. For the ones that don't fall into that category, he won't be looking at Metacritic as he knows its shovelware basically. I guess I'm just a bit of a cynic though :) |
|
-2
The latest Eurogamer EA SGS review proves Moore's point exactly.
"Professional" game reviewers? Don't make me laugh.... |
|
kangarootoo
11/06/09 @ 12:22
0
@BM
"I see your point, but for me what one person regards as a good game could well get slated by the mass public" Well that is entirely possible, but you its not personal :) If the game in question is made for the mass public and they slate it, then it has missed its mark regardless of whether you or I like it (or at the very least, if we loved the same game, it was targetting the wrong gamers). I can be a big ol' cynic too. But I also tend to drop itno devil's advocate mode when people immediately assume the worst in situations like this (especially if people twist things a bit or selectively ignore certain facts, as you know you did with the Fifa reference.. go on, put your hands up, you'll feel better for it :) ) |
|
+2
Crofto, you do talk some bollocks.
I think people should use whoever they trust to gauge the quality of the games their gonna buy. If a womans' magazine says that their kid likes the latest mini game collection, a game which is obviously not meant for the average gamer, who wants a new Metroid, etc, then why shouldn't a parent listen to them?! I remember playing some atrocious games as a kid, that at the time, I thought were awesome because I was a kid! Bad games reviews are so much better than good games reviews anyways... |
|
turnget2005
11/06/09 @ 13:23
0
imo Moore is on the money, the people that buy Wii games are not the sort of people that read reviews, for most of them its a healthy alternative to the traditional video game.
I know a lot of girls that have Wii's but put a pad in their hand and they are not interested. Obviously I’m generalising but that’s the point, Moore is doing the same thing and is probably right. Not that I like the cretin in any shape or form. |
|
+2
The amount of snobbery in some of these comments is incredible. Moore has a valid point tbh, mothers buying games for their kids, or generally casual gamers who may only have a Wii, will use what they know to base their decisions on, be it word of mouth or somewhere like amazon rather than metacritic. And naturally, "core" gamers will try and base their decisions on multiple opinions and may well read up a fair amount on whichever title they're looking at.
To have multiple strategies for obviously different demographics makes perfect sense, whether or not you as a core gamer like this is utterly irrelevant. Theres a reason EA is one of the most successful games companies on the planet, the ability to have fingers in multiple pies is essential. Id also bet that they spend a hell of a lot of money on market research too. |
|
0
So in a nut shell: "Wii owners will buy any old shite!"
But more seriously this reminds me of the article Eurogamer did on kids games a little while back which pointed out that just because you think "Bolt: The Videogame" was utter gash your kids might like it, but they'd prefer Castle Crashers even though it has a stupidly high age rating. |
|
0
I generally find that the few Wii reviews that do appear are largely irrelevant anyway. It's far too risky taking the advice of one or two reviewers, when their grasp of the controls can have a massive influence on the score.
The irony is, I find that so called casual/non-gamers pick up Wii controls far better than 'hardcore' gamers anyway. If you don't go into Wii games with a specific mind set (through years of using pads) it seems to be far more intuitive. Whilst I've been playing games since I got my Atari 7800, I was never particularly good. For some reason things have 'clicked' when playing on the Wii, I just 'get' the controls, even those that reviewers claim to be poor/broken. |
Comments: 1-49 of 49 in total
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
