EA CEO John Riccitiello has recently blamed poor reviews on reviewers themselves, saying that his company's games don't get a "cult" following from writers. Basically, he thinks his games are unfairly treated because people pick on poor, victimized EA.
Riccitiello compared his games to Broadway plays, and suggested he "feels like a bit of a twit" speaking highly about an upcoming game "because there's a certain cadre of journalists that would love to prove me wrong."
"It used to be...All Metacritics were higher once upon a time because it was ten professionals rating them. Now, sort of anybody with a pen can rate them and it ends up with a bit of a wider track some times.
EA doesn't usually get the benefit of the cult - 'everybody has to rate it a hundred' thing going on - that happens sometimes even when they may not, based on the review, have played more than the first fifteen minutes of the game. But that's a separate issue."
So, it's our fault that EA games get bad ratings. We, with our sickening honesty. If we gamers were illiterate, maybe this sort of thing wouldn't happen. So to all my peers, especially those of you on Destructoid's Metacritic-syndicated review team -- thanks for having the gall to read and write, you insensitive f*cks.
Oh, and maybe when EA produces a game worth a hundred, it will get a hundred.
[Via NihonTiger90's CBlog]
Jim Sterling serves as reviews editor for Destructoid.com, head of the Podtoid podcast, and produces a number of news stories, original features, one-of-a-kind videos. With his passionate argumentative style, controversial opinions, harsh delivery, and dedication to brutal honesty Sterling is a name that you can't help but recognize.
Likes
PS2, iPod Touch, Silent Hill 2, Metal Gear Solid, Dynasty Warriors 3
Meet the rest of the team
| BBcode help |
| [b]Bold text[/b] |
Bold text |
| [i]Italic text[/i] |
Italic text |
| [url]http://www.dtoid.com/[/url] |
http://www.dtoid.com |
| [url=http://www.dtoid.com/]Web link[/url] |
Web link |
|
| [img]http://www.example.com/robot.jpg[/img] |
 |
Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
80 comments | showing # 1 to 50
|
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
Comments policy
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Contest:
6:01 AM on 06.19.2008
| 
And you damn well should be.
I think what he is saying here is, now that metacritic's aggregate score is calculated from so many different sites there are far too many to have to pay or influence for a guaranteed good score. :P
He does have a point about 'cult' games though. Without the hype and rabid fanboyism surrounding them, some games like GTA IV and dare I say MGS4 (despite being a fan of the previous installments and originally being excited about it, the huge cut scenes are a big issue for me, I want to PLAY my game) wouldn't have their flaws overlooked quite so readily.
But then again, EA's ethos seems to be that developers should function as a conveyor belt, rather than the process being a creative outlet so it's hardly surprising the majority of their releases are bland and uninteresting or an unfinished mess and garner no critical acclaim.
John Riccitiello can toss my salad.
Game reviews 10 years ago, the reviews which counted towards things like metacritic, were all done by industry professionals. If you go down your average metacritic reviewers today, there is definitely a large percentage of non-professionals.
I can also get his point about the cult thing. If you find a "cult" game, or a game with a strong following, chances are it will indeed get a higher score than it should.
A lot of the reviews you see these days that are published on websites and in some magazines are very much of the "I liek dis game. 11/10" variety. Look at how many of the highest rated games are releases from the last year or two and the disparity between the quality of those, and lower rated but far more revolutionary (at the time) games of a few years ago.
Since the explosion of the internet and huge marketing budgets we seem to get a "OMG BEST GAME EVAR" every 6 months.
Moreso though, he's right. The average standard of games journalism (especially online) is a joke.
Those games just get hyped and the reviewers just go with that hype and reward those games with perfect scores. Sure this doesn't mean that the EA titles deserve the same praise. They surely don't. But the reviews have to go back to normal values. I haven't seen a review on a game that scored below 50 in a long time (except Ironman but even this game scored above 40) but I also haven't seen a AAA game score below 90 on the major review sites.
Kudos to Destructoid that they still offer honest reviews and didn't award GTA wit a ten. Ten means the game is perfect and there is nothing to improve upon. And such a game does not and won't ever exist.
Gaming has become extremely popular and now those 10 professionals no longer properly represent the entire demographic who play games. There are so many different types of gamer personalities now it's important to have a large sample size of reviews from which to sample from. You can't simply rely on 10 people anymore.
on topic: Ea makes bad games, created solely with the purpose to make money, not to innovate. Most of their games deserve the mediocre scores they get. You're basically a total retard if you buy their games. With the exception of a few (like battlefield, the game got a good score though which proves the point).
EA is the reason why parents all over the world keep saying "All those computer games are the same". Because when it concerns EA, they are absolutely right lol. They keep recycling their crap forever (madden games and other sport franchises). Boycot EA. They are responsible for destroying alot of creativity in the gaming industry. Dungeon keeper is no more, and the C&C games have become bland and standard, with hardly anything new each time EA poops out a new one.
Does no one here remember the old days? DUNGEON KEEPER MAN!!
Theme hospitaL!! EA must be stopped. Stop buying EA products. Seriously. I cant even count the amount of useless expansions the sims got on one hand.
I've never understood people's problems with "cult gaming" scores. People always assume that leway is given to these games and they obtain higher scores. However true cult gamers tend to look on their games with more scrutiny. A cult gamer holds a sequal to higher standards. They are not satisfied with a half ass sequal. They want perfection. If they don't they shouldn't call themselves a cult gamer.
Make a game worthy of cult status, you giant blubbering twit.
Looking Glass Studios... I still cry for you at night :`(
Besides, he doesn't really have a point about there being "too many" reviewers. Frankly, I'd trust "some gamer with a pen" over a paid professional, simply because I at least know that the former has a real passion for games and probably knows his shit.
Some of these "professional gaming journalists" have only been gaming for as long as they've been paid to talk about games. I don't trust that viewpoint as much as I trust someone who has a true passion for games. I like that Metacritic has expanded.
What about, say, someone who has Journalism as his major while studying Communications, and who has had a passion for video games, and plans on writing professionally one day? Some bloggers think that a diploma in journalism is some elitist piece of shit thing. Not saying all do, or that anyone here does, but my god.
Anyway, what I came in here to say is, maybe the reason EA don't get "cult" status is because cult games are usually original and quirky and interesting and don't have massive multi million dollar marketing budgets to get them massive brand name presence in the first place, and have to rely on quality and word of mouth to get the message out, therefore forming the nasty little cult that Johnny boy wants so badly.
Everything just described is everything EA isn't.
And doing shit like Mass Effect DRM, believe it or not, does leave a sour taste. You can look past it from a gameplay standpoint, but it's not just about gameplay, it's also about value for money, which is another issue entirely...
If it was just some random schmo, you'd be agreeing with the fact that there are cult games that are being reflexively given a 9 or 10 by everybody. GTA4 and SSBB coming to mind immediately for me...
I never get the big EA hate, they are a mega-publishing house and nothing more. You don't get mad the mega-publishers when you see movies or music or books you don't like, you hold the authors/artists/directors responsible.
We don't even get mad at publishers when they ARE applying pressure in other fields, because we still blame the artist or whatever, because they WILLINGLY made the switch from being independant or small-label and reap the benefits and problems associated with going major label/publisher.
p.s. HAHAHA!
I don't think he said anything like that, although, I'm sure you were just trying to be snide and hyperbolic. Your own site is guilty of furthering fanboy cultism, look at your MGS4 review. The reviewers barely fell short of ripping of Snake's pants and going to town.
Listen to any episode (at least the recent ones) of Podtoid; there's probably a mention of MGS. I enjoyed Army of Two a lot more than I did MGS4... and I didn't enjoy Army of Two at all... except for the over-the-top tag-team moments.
We're all angry that EA is saying it because they're saying it only about themselves, not the entire industry. Are they right? Sure, to a certain degree. But that doesn't excuse them from their tendency to pump out underdeveloped titles.
The universe has to balance itself somehow.
"Uh huh, because Sims and Spore doesn't have any strong following, few people have heard of them. See what happens when a developer is allowed to make something original instead of Madden version 8001?"
The article is essentially complaining about metacritic scores, not fanfare.
I hate EA a fair bit too; they recycle franchises and destroy good ones. However, I see his point and he is right. There is a lot of pressure on producers (and by extension, developers) to create games that score a certain % minimum. Producers with a proven track-record of meeting the % rating and meet sales expectations are considered succesful, not necessarily those who make the best game.
There is most assuredly a rating inflation going on. As the market has boomed, so have those looking to profit from it. As a result we get sensationalist reviews, instead of objective reviews, and these affect sales and reputation.
I think EA now is feeling the impact of their mistakes in the past. If they didnt make so many enemies then maybe there would be less people with a grudge against them who will take that into account when they do their reviewing.
There are always great sites that are impartial and honest reviewers, but there are some that wont be so honest. Its a shame but EA just has to live with its past mistakes now. Its made its bed.... now comes the time to sleep in it.....
I agree that EA has that nasty "money-grubbing monopoly" stigma about it, and I can see where some reviews would be biased because of that impression where others get slightly inflated scores because they're favored by the writer. Hey, we're all human and we can't be perfectly impartial all the time. However, that shouldn't be so big of an issue to cause an otherwise good game to gain poor reviews from so many varied sources (i.e. Lair) or vice versa.
If it's slammed across the board by various writers, then the problem is not on the reviewers' side (because it's virtually impossible for so many people to have the exact same bias), but with the game itself.
EA brings up a valid (somewhat) point, but I'm more inclined to say "stop whining, you pussies" right now than anything.
Pathetic.
Yes. I consider myself very qualified to talk about review scores since I know for a fact I score with the greatest honesty I can achieve. Furthermore, if my reviewers felt that MGS4 deserved the score it got, I stick by it. I fail to see how our review of MGS4 has any bearing on this discussion whatsoever, outside of the fact that EA seems to be jealous of those kinds of scores.
"There's plenty of flaws that would definitely lower the score and you admittedly rated it as fanboys so why should I listen to YOUR comments on reviewing when you are just as guilty of cult following when you happen to like the game ( Metal Gear 4 ) and only do reasonable reviews when you are not fanboys ( Grand Theft Auto 4 )."
Please see my Dynasty Warriors 6 review for the answer to this. If you read this site, you'll know I am a huge Koei fanboy, yet I have never rated a Koei game higher than an eight on this site. So, I can only speak for myself on this matter, but I think I do very reasonable reviews indeed and as such, have zero problem commenting on EA's statements in the least.
Whenever you take it personal is irrelevant since there is supposed to be somebody in charge of editing not to censor but to assure there is fairness, unbiased reviews. By you I mean all destructoid not you personally so don't try to save face with pointing to your specific reviews.
For our reviewers, those flaws clearly weren't enough to diminish the game's score. Now obviously, they are all huge MGS fans and did grade it as fans, but come on -- there is no such thing as an objective review. It's an impossible dream. Ultimately, MGS is a game that's going to score high if you love MGS, and not so high if you don't. It's a fact of life.
You may not agree with the score. I may not agree with the scores. Hell, I disagree with GTA's perfect tens, but am I going to try and discredit the sites that gave out those tens, or suggest they have no right to talk about game reviews? No. That's silly.
Even destructoid doesn't have a perfect rating system, it's just they are trustworthy enough not to rate a game on how much they get paid.