http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/at-least-one-publisher-still-loves-metacritic-it-s-nintendo/0145299
This may be better article than Kotaku's..
This may be better article than Kotaku's..
Nintendo really likes Metacritic
- Thread starter John Bender
- Start date
I hate the use of Metracritic in the industry and I think some people really misunderstand Nintendo's use of it here. They aren't cutting bonuses based on not meeting a score. They're aren't using it as justification for not making certain games. They are using it as a feather in their cap and as a way to easily demonstrate general quality of their games as well as the critical acclaim the games on their platforms have been able to accrue.
And despite people claiming they are only doing this because they sales are weak, they have games that are selling well but they are in a lesser proportion to the overall output. It isn't as much spin (I mean, you really think that kind of spin is going to work in an investor's meeting when people are going to be presented with the sales figures in the same meeting?) but Nintendo saying, "See, if there is any problem in this equation of hardware/software sales, it's not the quality, or even quantity, of good games on the platform."
And despite people claiming they are only doing this because they sales are weak, they have games that are selling well but they are in a lesser proportion to the overall output. It isn't as much spin (I mean, you really think that kind of spin is going to work in an investor's meeting when people are going to be presented with the sales figures in the same meeting?) but Nintendo saying, "See, if there is any problem in this equation of hardware/software sales, it's not the quality, or even quantity, of good games on the platform."
ieptbarakat
Member
There is nothing wrong with Nintendo bragging about how well their game reviews even if metacritic scores are a terrible thing for the games industry.
If not for these two reasons alone:
http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/15/obsidian-missed-fallout-new-vegas-metacritic-bonus-by-one-point/
http://kotaku.com/5960657/metacriti...that-gamespot-admits-was-factually-inaccurate
If not for these two reasons alone:
http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/15/obsidian-missed-fallout-new-vegas-metacritic-bonus-by-one-point/
http://kotaku.com/5960657/metacriti...that-gamespot-admits-was-factually-inaccurate
PROh1bited
Banned
The Wii U has been out a year longer. And the 3DS has been on the market for 4 years. Is Iwata stupid?
Stupid no, he is a very competent software engineer. He's just not good at being a CEO and should never have been placed in that role.
Natureboy99
Banned
Might be a little worried about his job.
LegendofDragoonLives
Member
I guess they must not be counting all the 3rd party games that aren't on their systems? 
KratosEnergyDrink
Member
PS4 + XOne + Vita taken together are longer on the market than Wii U + 3DS.
Nonetheless this metacritic nonsense is sure a way to please some investors. Gamers know that Nintendo systems always have a big chunk of the best games a generation but investors usually love numbers
How is that not relevant at an investor meeting? They'll be happy to see that quality isn't the problem, sure, but I don't think it's enough.
And you don't seem to understand my point. They're free to do what they want, I'm stating my dissent to the method and my doubts about investors caring much about Metacritic when sales are poor. I never said to ignore official game reviews, it would mean to ignore Metacritic itself, nor I said to select the ones that look free from bias, which is close to impossible. I clearly said to ignore ALL User Scores because it's a circus full of haters and ignorance and no one, investors or consumers, should take those numbers in consideration. Why? You need no more than 5 minutes to check it out for yourself. And I'm addressing user scores only, we could talk about crossgen games and remasters or the amount of scores or DD-only games or the fact that Wii U was released a year before etc, for example.
Point is, this comparison has no value at all to me because data are filtered with the wrong conditions to make it vaguely interesting. It's only good for them, to brag about it, which is perfectly fine, but it's not going to help anyone, consumers or investors. Like I said in the old topic, I see it as a not-so-well packed bullshit, no offense, because I can't extrapolate any meaningful information from it.
flatearthpandas
Member
It's not irrelevant to the investor meeting. It's irrelevant to our discussion on their use of Metacritic user reviews. As others have stated, showing good reviews is important to an investor meeting as a way to show that software quality and reception is not their issue.
I understood your point clearly but you don't seem to have understood me. If your goal is to remove bias and ignorance from review scores, you need a more eloquent solution that simply ignoring user reviews.
I don't know what interesting data you're searching for here though. The entire thing boils down to: "We have a higher number of current gen software rated highly by both critics and users on Metacritic. Metacritic is not a perfect measurement, but we seem to be doing okay with quality by this metric."
That's it.
And if the user reviews are, as you say, nothing but a circus of ignorance and haters, it is still interesting that Nintendo software still comes out ahead. Is it because Sony and Microsoft have bred a culture of ignorance and console wars on the site that doesn't care about Nintendo and leaves them unaffected? Is it because Nintendo is truly irrelevant? Maybe. Probably not useful for an investor meeting, but worth looking into in its own right. I still don't see an issue with Nintendo calling out that, even in this cesspool of console war, Nintendo software is still rated highly.
Sammy Samusu
Member
Of course Nintendo loves Metacritic, they make great games. What's the problem here?
Nintendo promotes their games through word of mouth, and Metacritic can help with that. Other publishers have to rely on false promises and heavy advertisement.
Nintendo promotes their games through word of mouth, and Metacritic can help with that. Other publishers have to rely on false promises and heavy advertisement.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Easy answer: Nintendo isn't seen as relevant in any "console war" and the hardcore fanbase has shrunk to the point of irrelevancy in mucking with Metacritic scores. No one is mucking with their User Scores because they don't care about their games.
platformmaster918
Banned
nostalgic reviewers citing "Nintendo Magic" as reasons for high scores really helps. They could make the same game 20 times and the reviewers would say "isn't more of the same exactly why we loved these as a kid? 9/10" while with other games they will say "not enough change 7/10"
It's ridiculous and I can't believe (AS AN OWNER OF WIIU AND PS4) that they would seriously rate Mario Kart 8 and Smash so high. A man likes them and plays regularly but Smash especially should be lambasted for lack of innovation the way Infamous was and the Order will
It's ridiculous and I can't believe (AS AN OWNER OF WIIU AND PS4) that they would seriously rate Mario Kart 8 and Smash so high. A man likes them and plays regularly but Smash especially should be lambasted for lack of innovation the way Infamous was and the Order will
TheSlySoul
Member
Yeah, he does a great job working on games like Miyamoto, but when both were put in charge we got some bad things from it. Sakurai is different in that he is a great producer, but just ok programming.
I do agree there is a bit of a double standard. Smash U only has one online mode and gets a pass compared to Injustice has more and gets panned for it.
I like Bayonetta 2, but the 10 scores baffle me. The game is pretty much DMC if DMC was on drugs.
Orniletter
Banned
Yeah, pathetic desperation, horrible and shameful. Just like TLoU's boxart mentioning the Goty awards.
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
Cane we move good as >67.....something is not right when Nier is placed as a game that is not good.
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
All Nintendos situation does is remind me how wrong the old saying "games sell consoles" is.
flatearthpandas
Member
I mean, that possibility is pretty clearly listed in the quote there. That doesn't mean it is the answer and it doesn't mean that Nintendo shouldn't brag that their games are well received by users.
I can just picture an investor standing up at the meeting and asking:
"Mr Iwata, isn't it true that that Sony's metacritic user reviews are so low only because of the console war and Nintendo's user reviews look so high in comparison because the haters aren't trolling Nintendo's scores? I have no evidence of this, of course, but have you seen Sony's user reviews?"
At best, you can call into question the comparison, but it really doesn't change the fact that Nintendo is getting good software reviews and that it is important to note that in face of their sales difficulties.
nobodyshero
Banned
lol i see zero problem with this, ESPECIALLY in a shareholder's meeting, where the thinking is as binary as it gets. it's not like they're plastering stickers on the boxes of games.
This
Other AAA games don't have that and prefer to hide behind "next gen" graphics to sell their games.
Games do sell systems. Nintendo lacks 3rd party support. Or do you honestly think that the PS4 would have its sales if it was just the first party line up?
orthodoxy1095
Banned
What's important to note about producing the good games? I mean, it's nice that they're on top of software, but if I was an investor, I would think that this comparison would raise some red flags for me.
Here's something I can actually picture an investor asking: "Mr. Iwata, what does it say about your management that Nintendo has the best rated games in the industry yet continues to have middling sales? Why have the other platforms, in less time and with less critically acclaimed games surpassed the Wii U?"
thestopsign
Member
The "Nintendo Magic" isn't nostalgia. It is polish and care. They don't send out incomplete or broken games. They send out high quality, content rich games that have refined gameplay hooks and fantastic production value throughout. As Smash Wii U was only the fourth entry in the series in 15 years and Mario Kart 8 was the eighth entry in 23 years, I don't think it is appropriate to compare them to yearly franchises, especially when there is plenty of new content available in each game.
Edit: Whether the games appeal to you or not, you can't say Nintendo doesn't put out well made, reliable products.
I really don't have a strong opinion about this. Their games review well, let em flex. As long as it doesn't turn into this:
Oh god xD
flatearthpandas
Member
And that is a fair question and something that should indeed be addressed at the investor meeting. Sales are low and I imagine investors would want to know why. That's why high quality software is important to note: sales aren't low because the games are bad therefore the solution to low sales needs to be found in some other aspect of the business.
Beelzebufo
Banned
Yeah, pathetic desperation, horrible and shameful. Just like TLoU's boxart mentioning the Goty awards.
Maybe he was talking about the article writer, not Iwata
timetokill
Banned
There's no problem with this. Iwata's not holding it over a developer's head in exchange for bonuses. He's simply backing up a "we make extremely high-quality games that have great critical acclaim" with information that qualifies that statement.
It's a hell of a lot better than just saying it, because anybody can say that.
It's a hell of a lot better than just saying it, because anybody can say that.
geordiemp
Member
Good point, I recall almost every Infamous game getting the 'no next gen gameplay' or whatever rubbish that is not universally applied to every review. I recall Ratchet and clank games often getting the same treatment on Eurogamer.
Probably why many most ignore review scores or take with heavy pinches of salt, or read enough of them to filter out the rubbish stuff....and maybe why so many sites are ditching them.
Reviewers can have rose tinted glasses and be just as biased, and it really is subjective. Its OK if a reviewer thought he liked the game as a 9/10 or 10/10 as his personal likes, but if the game really was a 9/10 or 10/10 OBJECTIVELY everybody would buy it.
InfiniteCombo
Banned
So wait... this was at a meeting for investors, correct?
Investor (plural investors)
1. A person who invests money in order to make a profit
If I were an investor at this meeting, I'd ask:
"How exactly is this critical acclaim translating to sales?"
It's nice that they have high rated games, but as an investor I would care more about what the entity I'm investing in is doing to maximize my return on investment.
EDIT: my post is essentially in line with orthodoxy's (#323) above.
Investor (plural investors)
1. A person who invests money in order to make a profit
If I were an investor at this meeting, I'd ask:
"How exactly is this critical acclaim translating to sales?"
It's nice that they have high rated games, but as an investor I would care more about what the entity I'm investing in is doing to maximize my return on investment.
EDIT: my post is essentially in line with orthodoxy's (#323) above.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
I think that's why some people are missing the point when they say sarcastically "Oh how dare they brag about having great software!" Because well yeah, it's not really pure "bragging material." The scores speak to a problem that they have the highest rated software and the least amount of mindshare and marketshare of the three platforms.
Exactly what I was saying as well. If this was merely about marketing and slapping some 9/10s and GOTY labels onto the boxes, that wouldn't be noteworthy. What's noteworthy for the investors is that the excellent software isn't translating into excellent sales.
Yeah, I cautiously think Sakurai would be great in Miyamotos position.
robertlebrone
Member
What's wrong with Metacritic?
Fudgepuppy
Banned
"Investor's meeting" is the key word here. He's just pandering.
Arkage
Banned
Videogame site that doesn't like scoring games shits on a game company head that's proud of their game scores. Such surprise.
Go ruin someone else's party Kotaku. If you don't like game scores, fine, but trying to shame other people for being proud of them or finding them relevant is pathetic. It reeks of a smug superiority complex. This really isn't a case of being on the "right side of history" even though you guys seem to be straining to make the case it is.
At least Bossman is doing some push-back on this ridiculousness.
Go ruin someone else's party Kotaku. If you don't like game scores, fine, but trying to shame other people for being proud of them or finding them relevant is pathetic. It reeks of a smug superiority complex. This really isn't a case of being on the "right side of history" even though you guys seem to be straining to make the case it is.
At least Bossman is doing some push-back on this ridiculousness.
Mr. Nice_Guy
Member
Last I remember the shareholders were being complete shits, something about asking for gifts or something? I might be misremembering a P4G article.
But whatever it takes to shut them up, I honestly don't mind. Shareholders generally do more harm than good in these situations so as long as they are appeased and leave Nintendo be this doesn't really phase me.
But whatever it takes to shut them up, I honestly don't mind. Shareholders generally do more harm than good in these situations so as long as they are appeased and leave Nintendo be this doesn't really phase me.
InfiniteCombo
Banned
Your post brings up a fair point. What I've highlighted in bold, though: isn't that something that investors should have been asking for quite some time now, though? Given the Wii U's hardware and software sales, how come no "solution" has been implemented yet? Or if solutions have been attempted, how come sales continue as they are?
Glad I'm not an investor, and know next to nothing about investing. I would probably be obnoxious at these meetings, with all the questions I'd be asking...
Has anyone ever gotten great reviews and not acknowledged it whatsoever? Let alone at an investor meeting? Seems like an absolutely bizarre idea.
Lionel Richie
Member
Yes and stop doing Directs and just fucking go third party already.
Astral Dog
Member
Maybe they mean exclusives, after all, its the reason to get a Wii U.
Still good scores and critical reception doesn't translate to good sales.
protomouse
Member
I don't think anyone was "missing the point", because there was no point being made. Kotaku just shitposted. It's not exactly a giant mental leap to understand that sales come directly from mass appeal and not necessarily from critical acclaim. It works that way in every creative industry, after all. If I start exemplifying such parallels, I might summon Chmpocalypse in here to call me an elitist, so I will refrain from doing so. But you catch my drift. Nintendo makes mechanically solid, content-rich, highly polished products that almost no one wants to buy, because it's not in line with what's popular today. I think it will require a shift in leadership for that to change, including some much needed autonomy for their regional filials, investment into western studios, and a mass-entrance of third parties to get that kind of response.
Astral Dog
Member
He just wants to show investors the quality of their games has been good...
Astral Dog
Member
But, they have been asking that? don't we have tons of articles on investors asking Iwata about the Wii U sales?
MrAstronaut
Member
orthodoxy1095
Banned
And what's has the answer been? And what will the answer be in the future? I would think that given the astounding success of the PS4 and X1 over the last year, Iwata should have been grilled over these Metascore citations. The scores mean...well nothing. They make great games that the majority of the market either don't want or are unaware about. That's a huge problem. The scores are of course, nice, but in some ways it speaks to a huge problem that they're so critically acclaimed and yet unwanted.
More to the point, I want to know what Iwata and Nintendo think the future is.
darthsontin
Member
If it is only exclusives, then why are Bayonetta (PS3, 360) and Virtue's Last Reward (Vita) on there?
I do find it funny that they added the user score criteria, because we all know how useful Metacritic user scores are. Also, Persona Q is in the picture but it only has an 84. We all know how important that 1 point is from the Bethesda/FNO debacle.
If you look at just the Metacritic 85+ scores alone with no other stipulations, this is the breakdown:
PS4-21
Xbox One-15
WiiU-21
3DS-21
Vita-23
Seems like a pretty even split across all consoles.
I don't fault Nintendo for putting their spin on it since we know all of the companies do that. Microsoft especially likes to word their PR releases with obvious special criteria to make it look better.
I do find it funny that they added the user score criteria, because we all know how useful Metacritic user scores are. Also, Persona Q is in the picture but it only has an 84. We all know how important that 1 point is from the Bethesda/FNO debacle.
If you look at just the Metacritic 85+ scores alone with no other stipulations, this is the breakdown:
PS4-21
Xbox One-15
WiiU-21
3DS-21
Vita-23
Seems like a pretty even split across all consoles.
I don't fault Nintendo for putting their spin on it since we know all of the companies do that. Microsoft especially likes to word their PR releases with obvious special criteria to make it look better.
Natureboy99
Banned
Except WiiU and 3DS had a year head start.
Astral Dog
Member
Future as in next gen systems? they have to do it well, rushing a console to the market is not a good idea, regardless of how the Wii U is doing,speaking about them on an investors meeting and revealing too much is not something they can do either, im guessing they will focus on profits from Amiibos, 3DS and whatever they can salvage from the Wii U.
I reallty want to know about the future too, but Iwata has been clear that Wii U is the focus now, the system is not over yet.
we will know more in the QA