Support NeoGAF

[Thick Thighs Save Lives]

Industry veteran and No More Heroes creator Goichi 'Suda51' Suda believes games companies are still putting too much stock in how their games perform on Metacritic.

In an interview with GamesIndustry.biz, Suda and his fellow Japanese legend Shinji Mikami discussed the myriad reasons that titles like their own, with their distinct style and flavour, have been somewhat rare over the years – and Suda suggested it's because many companies are too focused on review scores.

"Everybody pays too much attention to and cares too much about Metacritic scores. It's gotten to the point where there's almost a set formula – if you want to get a high Metacritic score, this is how you make the game," he explained.

"If you've got a game that doesn't fit into that formula, that marketability scope, it loses points on Metacritic. The bigger companies might not want to deal with that kind of thing. That might not be the main reason, but that's certainly one reason why. Everyone cares too much about the numbers.

"Personally, I don't care too much about the Metacritic numbers. I'm not really conscious of them. What's important to us is putting the games out that we want to put out and having people playing the games we want them to be able to play."

Suda admitted he does occasionally check Metacritic scores, especially when his studio Grasshopper Manufacture has released a game.

"Sometimes a media outlet has given us zero. That makes me feel shitty - why go that far and give us zero?" he laughs. "But apart from that I try to avoid Metacritic."

Mikami, meanwhile, believes that there are plenty of less conventional titles out there, but they get less attention "because of all the big budget games that are out there and all the power that's put into the marketing for them."

"The kind of games that get the most marketing support are the ones that need to appeal to as broad an audience as possible," he said. "More unique games don't really have the same marketability."

You can read our full interview with Suda and Mikami here. The conversation covers the return of their second collaboration, Shadows of the Damned, and the third collaboration that never happened, Zombie Rider.

Suda51: "Everyone cares too much about Metacritic scores"

Industry veteran and No More Heroes creator Goichi 'Suda51' Suda believes games companies are still putting too much st…

www.gamesindustry.biz

 

[FoxMcChief]

 

[Gamer_By_Proxy]

I mean, he's not wrong, but of course he'd be the one to say it. ha!
I like his weird stuff.

 

[GHound]

Absolutely true. I even felt that way before I developed an aversion to westoid game journos with a fetish for cultural vandalism.

 

[Giallo Corsa]

Gotta love the man, his games were never "AAA®" and are always pretty junky but G'damn if they aren't memorable and filled with "colorful" characters...
I'll always stan for him and I'd take his B-tier games everytime over someone's like Kamiya.

Dude will always have my money, he's just likeable, doesn't take his self nor his games seriously which in the end, are always fun in their own, special way.

 

[SlimySnake]

Not me. I am pushing 40. I know the games i like. I buy them regardless of the scores. Bought many 60-70s metacritic games and no regrets.

if anything, it;s the 95+ games that rub me the wrong way. im expecting masterpiece and i get the same flawed games I played when i picked up the 60-70 metacritic title.

 

[Wildebeest]

The western "game journalists" cancelled him back in 2013, or earlier, for the women in his games being too hot and seductive.

 

[Luipadre]

Not me. I am pushing 40. I know the games i like. I buy them regardless of the scores. Bought many 60-70s metacritic games and no regrets.

if anything, it;s the 95+ games that rub me the wrong way. im expecting masterpiece and i get the same flawed games I played when i picked up the 60-70 metacritic title.

Thats me too

 

[od-chan]

This just in: Creatives don't agree with out of touch executives, more news at 11.

 

[SHA]

Not with ign, gamespot, kotako and pretty much every site that has opinionated moderators.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I think it's kind of important. Why would anyone want to make a shit game?

His point about scores/formula I disagree with. Lots of big name formula games get trashed. And also crazy weird indie games can score well.

I have no proof, but what I think does correlate to some degree is games with big budgets, name recognition and marketing will usually sell. It might be a shit game and only sell 1-2M copies. Or for them, 5M is crap. But it might still be millions sold.

If he wants more happiness in gaming with fewer corporate restrictions, make good quirky indie games people want and they can be giant sellers. Balatro has sold 2M copies being a rogue-ish deck building game that looks 30 years old. Great game. Zero marketing except a demo I think which I missed the date.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

This is exactly how I feel.

NGL, it takes a while to completely take it out of one’s system.

But ultimately everyone reaches there and develop their own taste in games.

 

[Wildebeest]

I think it's kind of important. Why would anyone want to make a shit game?

His point about scores/formula I disagree with. Lots of big name formula games get trashed. And also crazy weird indie games can score well.

I have no proof, but what I think does correlate to some degree is games with big budgets, name recognition and marketing will usually sell. It might be a shit game and only sell 1-2M copies. Or for them, 5M is crap. But it might still be millions sold.

If he wants more happiness in gaming with fewer corporate restrictions, make good quirky indie games people want and they can be giant sellers. Balatro has sold 2M copies being a rogue-ish deck building game that looks 30 years old. Great game. Zero marketing except a demo I think which I missed the date.

How many people doing game reviews now would you trust not to make a 100% stinky turd of a game if given the chance?

 

[SlimySnake]

I think it's kind of important. Why would anyone want to make a shit game?

His point about scores/formula I disagree with. Lots of big name formula games get trashed. And also crazy weird indie games can score well.

I have no proof, but what I think does correlate to some degree is games with big budgets, name recognition and marketing will usually sell. It might be a shit game and only sell 1-2M copies. Or for them, 5M is crap. But it might still be millions sold.

If he wants more happiness in gaming with fewer corporate restrictions, make good quirky indie games people want and they can be giant sellers. Balatro has sold 2M copies being a rogue-ish deck building game that looks 30 years old. Great game. Zero marketing except a demo I think which I missed the date.

Yes, a lot of big games with big marketing budgets have been trashed by reviewers in the last couple of years. Skull and Bones, Suicide Squad, Concord, etc Even Avatar which is fairly competent albeit boring and bland is sitting at a 68 metacritic. and rightfully so.

But i do think in some cases, games end up scoring way higher. Starfield for example. If Avatar is bland and boring and a 68, why is starfield an 84? IIRC, it debuted at 89 from major reviewers. thats insane for that game. Halo, Horizon FW, Ratchet, Gears, and so many other games just score way too high in the 80s when they should be in the mid 70s at best. It's like reviewers just jump on the bandwagon on really bad games and give them trash scores like they did for anthem, suicide squad and skull and bones, but if a game has some prestige behind it like most Sony studios, they are like ok, we cant really go any lower than an 80. So in effect, the higher production values of a Sony and other major third party game does buy them some goodwill compared to a smaller game with maybe B tier production values.

 

[proandrad]

Would have more weight coming from someone like Miyazaki.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Yes, a lot of big games with big marketing budgets have been trashed by reviewers in the last couple of years. Skull and Bones, Suicide Squad, Concord, etc Even Avatar which is fairly competent albeit boring and bland is sitting at a 68 metacritic. and rightfully so.

But i do think in some cases, games end up scoring way higher. Starfield for example. If Avatar is bland and boring and a 68, why is starfield an 84? IIRC, it debuted at 89 from major reviewers. thats insane for that game. Halo, Horizon FW, Ratchet, Gears, and so many other games just score way too high in the 80s when they should be in the mid 70s at best. It's like reviewers just jump on the bandwagon on really bad games and give them trash scores like they did for anthem, suicide squad and skull and bones, but if a game has some prestige behind it like most Sony studios, they are like ok, we cant really go any lower than an 80. So in effect, the higher production values of a Sony and other major third party game does buy them some goodwill compared to a smaller game with maybe B tier production values.

I agree with that. I think there's some legacy games that seem to score awesome no matter what.

I'm not joking when I say this, but if Nintendo truly released a crappy Mario or Zelda game, it would probably score at least 85. Even if the game wasnt even complete or there was a big freezing bug midway thorugh for all gamers they'd just say it's still a good game and wait for a patch.

There's also the easiest answer..... advertising money and early access to games and info. Jeff Gertsmann K&L review fiasco at Gamespot was a laugh.

It's also easier for reviewers to trash a new IP because they dont have to fight off legacy fans who have loved the series for 20 years.

 

[The Cockatrice]

I don't.

 

[Kumomeme]

this is not new issue. developers been complaining about it atleast for already a decade.

honestly im suprise nothing much change up to today despite lot of complaint made.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I can't even remember the last time i checked metacritic before buying a game

 

[Roberts]

There are way too many great games that are just too weird or unusual for many game critics to fully appreciate them. Hopefully someday we will have game critics like Ebert, Sarris, Kael that can appreciate greatness that aren’t just shiny graphics and perfected but overly familiar game mechanics.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

An even worse cancer is the user scores. Like who cares? Specially on steam, even more than user scores on metacritic.

Now even CCU topics are created.

People just got too addicted to follow numbers and discussing them. More than the time they spend playing videogames, they spend discussing games and their buying habits are tied to scores.

I'm to be blamed as well btw.

 

[CompleteGlobalSaturation]

Space marine 2 got 80s.

A few years ago this would have been considered "average" by the gaming press and those who visit forums.

But all I know it's the best damn game I've played this year.

 

[TheDarkPhantom]

1. Love all of Suda's work

2. I don't give a fuck about scores insofar as they affect my buying habits

That's not to say scores don't matter, they absolutely do, *especially* to the casual gamer and a game will sell more if it has critical acclaim.

 

[fart town usa]

He's absolutely right.

 

[YukiOnna]

Yup. It's just become a set number that restricts freedom in the game design and, for some reason, became a powerful marketing tool. I don't care about it or reviews since it's of no value in helping me decide to buy a game or not and majority of outlets suck.

 

[cireza]

Indeed. Every time a AAA/big game gets 90+, I become wary because it most probably is overrated. Almost always true.

 

[Arsic]

Imagine if someone gave Suda a Kojima budget. He would make an incredible title. His current roster of games are generally held back due to limited budgets. They are run but clearly A/AA titles with jankiness l. They overcome this with style and substance in what’s there.

The dude is spot on though. A lot of these 6s&7s are just as good/bad as the 8s&9s of the world.

 

[DKPOWPOW]

Yes.

GameRankings was far better.

 

[Walter Matthau]

I find that many professional reviewers don’t put an adequate enough weighting on how fun a game is to actually play.

I also find that they are too generous in their evaluation of indie games.

 

[Cakeboxer]

He is absolutely right. Metacritic is cancer for the industry and there is so much wrong with it.

- Completely different and imprecise rating systems getting combined into one.
- As a result some games getting multiple 100/100. That's just wrong, no game is a 100
- Some games get very few reviews and suffer much more from a low score than games with 100 reviews.
- Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft reviewers shouldn't be allowed.
- Reviewers with a political agenda shouldn't be allowed.
- Small websites with like 100 visitors shouldn't be allowed.

I know people love it simple with their numbers, but i would prefer some kind of Smiley face system with the top 3 positives and negatives reviewers mentioned. There is barely any difference between a 81 or a 90 game, yet many people think the 81 sucks while the 90 is the Second Coming of Christ

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

if your game is niche, MC is not a factor.