EA Would Like to be '90-Plus Metacritic at Everything'

[News Portal]

EA doesn't aim low when it comes to game development - in fact they aim exceptionally high. Origin senior vice president David DeMartini revealed to MCV that they "want to be 90 plus Metacritic at everything". "Origin is moving in that direction," said DeMartini. "We are not there yet. We understand that. But we are going to get there soon."

Source: MCV, via VG247

Read full article by GON News

[Anon. E. Moose]

Uh oh, you've done it now.

[Makena]

Queue outrage at a business aiming to do well in a commonly referenced resource.

EA/ORIGIN ATE MY BABY OR SOMETHING ELSE OUTRAGEOUS

[spawneh]

Well they only need to do it once. Then just release that game every year.

[Skrotus]

non story

[Kinky Kel]

Have EA released something worthy of a 90 to date?

[Snixtor]

So, given their time again, they wouldn't have published the 81/100 MetaCritic scoring title: Mirror's Edge? Or they would have pushed the developer to make something with more "mainstream appeal"?

Both would have been disappointing results.

[meji]

Soon?

Going to have to change what they produce, how they produce it and how they deliver it if they want any chance of that being a possible reality. Then again this is from the mouths of "steam sales cheapen IP" and then start throwing their own sales around on Origin o_O

Having ambitious business goals is one thing but so is hypocrisy for EA it seems.

[Makena]

So, given their time again, they wouldn't have published the 81/100 MetaCritic scoring title: Mirror's Edge? Or they would have pushed the developer to make something with more "mainstream appeal"?

Both would have been disappointing results.

They simply want to produce products that fare well in the eyes of critics and the general public. It's not a bad aspiration, they would have liked Mirror's Edge to get over 90. I imagine if you asked most publishers they'd probably all say they'd like the products they make to score well.

This is really just a publisher saying "We want our products to be successful".

[Snixtor]

This is really just a publisher saying "We want our products to be successful".

I think that's oversimplifying things.

The stated goal is "high Metacritic review scores". What I'm speculating on is how they achieve that goal. As I suggested, the ways EA could have avoided publishing an "81" with Mirror's Edge were:

a) Don't publish it.
b) Push the developer in a direction that is more likely to achieve a 90+ meta score.

Option a, I think we can agree, isn't thrilling. And option b, well, that's a bit subjective really. With a score of 81, a game is, I feel, in that grey zone where it doesn't necessarily have any technical faults, but their may just be something that keeps it away from universal mainstream appeal.

What I'm trying to get at, is that a game can have certain attributes that prevent if from averaging 90+, which cast in the right light are actually good things.

[Makena]

I think that's oversimplifying things.

I think you're chasing shadows, but each to their own.

EA seem to be more often trying new things, even if just using old IP in new ways, I simply think they'd have liked a game like Mirror's edge to get a 90, they're not at all saying anwhere in the articles related to this, that they regret or think a game not getting that was a poor choice.

But if a game like Mirror's edge doesn't generate enough of a return to justify the output, then, they're a business, not a charity, it stands to perfect reason that the game would be changed to generate a higher return (And higher metacritic scores, as more people like it).

People can get annoyed at that all they like, but when there is millions of dollars being thrown around, it shouldn't be a surprise.

[Snixtor]

But if a game like Mirror's edge doesn't generate enough of a return to justify the output, then, they're a business, not a charity, it stands to perfect reason that the game would be changed to generate a higher return (And higher metacritic scores, as more people like it).

Metacritic isn't a particularly good correlation for the financial success of a title though. Take a look at CoD: Black Ops for example. Averages less than 90 on all platforms, has truly woeful user scores. Yet it's the best selling game in the USA to date - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Du ... _Ops#Sales

Now you could argue that EA, were they the publisher, would have simply tried to "polish" the game in such a way that the review scores improved. But it's entirely feasible that the very things that gave the game lower review scores, are the same things that gave it huge financial success.

Critical success, financial success, variety. These may be overlapping concepts, but at the extreme boundaries (and 90+ Metacritic is an extreme boundary), they can push in rather different directions.

[Makena]

Metacritic isn't a particularly good correlation for the financial success of a title though. Take a look at CoD: Black Ops for example. Averages less than 90 on all platforms, has truly woeful user scores. Yet it's the best selling game in the USA to date - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Du ... _Ops#Sales

Now you could argue that EA, were they the publisher, would have simply tried to "polish" the game in such a way that the review scores improved. But it's entirely feasible that the very things that gave the game lower review scores, are the same things that gave it huge financial success.

Critical success, financial success, variety. These may be overlapping concepts, but at the extreme boundaries (and 90+ Metacritic is an extreme boundary), they can push in rather different directions.

I do see and understand your point, but the user score of Black Ops is a very poor example, many angry users gave it scores of 0 - 4, which even if you don't like the game, it's still a very complete, functional and playable package, so the score is unfairly skewed toward a lower number. (If you like that genre of game (Arcade shooty GIANT EXPLOSIONS), then it's a good game in that area).

I don't see anything to suggest EA is unhappy with games they've published that didn't get the 90+ result, it's just a stated goal that they'd like that to happen.

Which, as I've said, isn't a surprise, and I don't even think it's news. If Holden or Ford came out saying "We want all our new cars to get 10/10 reviews", people would simply go "Oh that's a nice goal, I hope they're investing in the right areas/areas of weakness/whatever it'd take to get to very high scores".

If the quotes provided were "We want 90+ metacritic scores regardless of anything", then it might be worth getting annoyed at them, but simply saying we want to get good reviews, I think looking for negatives in that, is being negative toward EA for the sake of being negative.

[Aeolus_C]

Do people actually base the purchase of games on the metacritic score said game recieved?

I always got the impression it was just a bit of industry wank.

[PalZer0]

They're obviously going to bribe the reviewers to make sure they get a 90 on Metacritic.

Scoreless reviews FTW!