Jason Schreier writes about how review aggregator Metacritic—and the publishers obsessed with it—have hurt games by making developers to live and die by its scores.
"Armed with the knowledge that higher review scores meant more money for them, game producers were thus encouraged to identify the elements that reviewers seemed to most notice and most like–detailed graphics, scripted set piece battles, 'robust' online multiplayer, 'player choice,' and more, more of everything," Burns wrote. Like a food company performing a taste test to find out that people basically like the saltiest, greasiest variation of anything and adjusting its product lineup accordingly
It's a number generated by averaging the subjectively-selected opinions of critics, whose own subjective scoring systems are often mangled in the process. This reductive process results in something that appeals to many gamers: a simple quantity that seems ＯＢＪＥＣＴＩＶＥ.
Metacritic's founder offers contempt, perhaps a little defensively, for publishers who use its scores to turn the screw on developers: "Metacritic has absolutely nothing to do with how the industry uses our numbers."
