Or more precisely, it ranks companies by scores as well as individuals. This is not a good thing because:
1. It associates developers by every single game their name is listed on. Including ports of their games to other systems which they may not have had anything to do with. So they'd now better hope their chosen company doesn't just start remaking their games like crazy.
2. It gives another fanboy metric. First it was 'my game series/game is better than yours', now it's 'my favourite video game developer is better than your favourite developer',
3. It screws up job prospects, and puts all blame on the development staff. Or if I was cynical, the most well known person/people associated with the product. So if you happen on a disasterous game, good bye future career, because your employer can look up your name, find a score average and decide whether you're a 'good' video game developer.
The other problem, company wise is that by nature of them generalising the scores, the top and bottom ranked companies are just those who've made merely one or two games. Make one good game and you go straight to the top of the list, make one awful one and you're seen as fifty something points below the average. It ends up mattering less whether the company has made great games as much as whether they just made 'fairly good' ones only. Or basically, make one bad game after/before a breakout mass hit, and your score ends up worse than some nobody who made only middle of the road games.
Anyone else think is a really worrying option on Metacritic?
1. It associates developers by every single game their name is listed on. Including ports of their games to other systems which they may not have had anything to do with. So they'd now better hope their chosen company doesn't just start remaking their games like crazy.
2. It gives another fanboy metric. First it was 'my game series/game is better than yours', now it's 'my favourite video game developer is better than your favourite developer',
3. It screws up job prospects, and puts all blame on the development staff. Or if I was cynical, the most well known person/people associated with the product. So if you happen on a disasterous game, good bye future career, because your employer can look up your name, find a score average and decide whether you're a 'good' video game developer.
The other problem, company wise is that by nature of them generalising the scores, the top and bottom ranked companies are just those who've made merely one or two games. Make one good game and you go straight to the top of the list, make one awful one and you're seen as fifty something points below the average. It ends up mattering less whether the company has made great games as much as whether they just made 'fairly good' ones only. Or basically, make one bad game after/before a breakout mass hit, and your score ends up worse than some nobody who made only middle of the road games.
Anyone else think is a really worrying option on Metacritic?
