It seems that in this business, review scores aren't really all that important. Sure, they might influence a few sales, but some critically acclaimed works has failed to shift the units they deserve, while a load of real drek can make millions. Ubisoft knows this, and CFO Alain Martinez has claimed that a review score isn't everything.
"It's not ratings that mean everything, but we think quality and innovation are the key," claims Martinez. "To be honest, when Assassin's Creed launched and got 82 percent, we were desperate, and we thought we were going to die."
First of all, since when did an 82% mean anything bad? See, now this is why reviews aren't taken seriously by people -- the vast majority of them are utterly meaningless. When you're dishing out nines and tens like candy to the point where an 82% score average means "death," then there's something wrong with games media.
That absurdity aside, Martinez is right. He also points out how Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time garnered great reviews but failed to meet sales expectations. This is the fault of the market, something we discussed yesterday, as consumers fail to latch onto a game unless it's a sequel and encourage publishers to churn out safe, but utterly mediocre, garbage to people who are too stupid to make a new purchasing decision.
So in closing -- f*ck 99% of game reviewers for dishing out high scores too easily, and f*ck the rest of us for not buying Sands of Time enough.
Contest:
10:49 AM on 12.11.2008
| 
Actually hell with scores, you read reviews for opinions and issues about the game, a detailed evaluation would be much more effective than a ballpark score.
When I saw the commercial for it I was sold. No review told me to get it. Of course that was before the internet had me in its grasps and I saw TOO much information.
Ahh, the good old days.
I never got a chance to check out the previous PoP games beyond playing half of the first one. My original Xbox was one of the early models so the thing locks up on every game except Halo 2.
As Microsoft seems to be done with backwards compatibility, they need to work on getting those games as downloads. I'm pretty sure they'd sell better than Raze's Hell.
Neither can destructoid! Okay I'll stop bein' a dick now.
Gamespot gives out 52 "10's" in one year, changing it's policy to hand them out once every 50 years.
But you do make a great point. And here's an offbeat point to help yours. Anyone remember "Enter the Matrix"? Subpar to just horrible reviews. But due to movie/media super hype, it became one of the best selling games of the year.
Also, people are stupid if they don't buy games that you like? What if they don't like that type of game? Are YOU stupid because you buy Dynasty Warriors games that are rated in the 5's or 6's?
You can make your point without making huge generalizations, you know. You won't be as successful of a troll, but your points will be just as (if not more) valid.
But, to make a long story short, reviewers generally suck at reviewing.
Totally in agreement.
Good point. An 8.2 in November is like a 6.5 in July. With so many great games out that time of year, those who look at reviews have a lot of high 8's and 9's to choose from, if they are heavily influenced by reviews that is.
Uh..............
Prince of Persia at least survived the "low" sales. Beyond Good and Evil has taken years to get a sequel that I'm still skeptical will happen any time soon, and that has remained a critic favorite. It happens.
Did you read the actual article? They also came to the conclusion in the end that there's no reason to be overly concerned about review scores. I don't remember them saying that the 82 average wasn't deserved, either.