Moderator: Content Admins
Snixtor wrote: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.
Makena wrote:This is really just a publisher saying "We want our products to be successful".
Snixtor wrote:I think that's oversimplifying things.
Makena wrote: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).
Snixtor wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests