<!--quoteo(post=2016149:date=Nov 8 2012, 07:42 PM:name=hate)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hate @ Nov 8 2012, 07:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2016149"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It took me a little less than 5 minutes to load into a map the first time I played. That would have DEFINITELY been enough to make me write about it in a review. In order to get a first impression on the game play, I have to play a game. And if it takes me that long to load in? Time that should have been spent getting an impression of game play is instead spent sitting at a waiting screen. That's a buzz kill. After paying money for a game, waiting for it to download and install, and getting my settings configured, having to wait an abnormal amount of time to load into an actual map is going to immediately give me a bad impression on the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except the way he wrote his article strongly suggested that you would have this five minute wait every time you load a match, which, again, is simply untrue if he played at least one match. Red herring is not going to make the inaccuracies in his articles go away. I would re-post my entire post to further elaborate as to why I made the single-game-ragequit assumption, but I have found that most people responding to my posts regarding this article just argue for the sake of arguing and resort to nothing but logical fallacies almost exclusively.
So, gamespot claims to have pulled the review, but at the bottom of the post about them pulling the review is a "More from GameSpot" section. With a link to the review. That has obviously not been pulled. Because the link works and takes you to the inaccurate review.
EDIT: This may only be the case on their mobile site. I get a 404 when I switch to desktop view. In any case, they definitely have not pulled the review on their mobile site.
The new review is out. <a href="http://uk.gamespot.com/natural-selection-2/reviews/natural-selection-2-review-6399998/" target="_blank">http://uk.gamespot.com/natural-selection-2...review-6399998/</a> 8/10
<!--quoteo(post=2022746:date=Nov 13 2012, 06:42 PM:name=rantology)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rantology @ Nov 13 2012, 06:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2022746"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Metacritic still lists the old 6/10 review in the score. :s<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Metacritic manually updates. It could take a day or two.
Edit - I stand corrected. See reply below mine. Hopefully they will change it.
<!--quoteo(post=2022747:date=Nov 13 2012, 06:43 PM:name=Comprox)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Comprox @ Nov 13 2012, 06:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2022747"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Metacritic manually updates. It could take a day or two.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
According to skuggan who posted here they will not: <a href="http://uk.gamespot.com/news/natural-selection-2-review-pulled-6399748#lf_comment=43561962" target="_blank">http://uk.gamespot.com/news/natural-select...omment=43561962</a>
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Skuggan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Skuggan)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I e-mailed metacritic about the score. This is their answer:
"Metacritic does not pull reviews or scores - publications get one bite at the apple, and GameSpot knows this. We share a parent company. If they decide to bump up a score, lower a score, or not review it again, we stick with the first review and score. It's a critic protection measure."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty crappy if true especially considering the original article doesn't even exist anymore.
<!--coloro:#FFC0CB--><span style="color:#FFC0CB"><!--/coloro-->Solid review, nice to see that the author took plenty of time to learn the game. The criticisms at the end are fair. Overall they hit the nail on the head: if you're patient enough to learn it, NS2 is a pretty unique experience and a very refreshing change from other modern shooters like <i>Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3</i> and <i>Call of Halo: Spartan Ops 4</i>.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
It was a good review. I still think reviews should mention that NS2 is an indie game at an indie price. $25 is a VERY reasonable price for a game these days. I also wish they would mention the backstory of NS2's development, because it's truly an impressive accomplishment for so small a team.
It's incredibly fair and this is coming from a NS1 player.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was referring to Metacritics policy on not revising a posted review score, especially when the group issuing that rating no longer stands behind the rating.
Not sure what you're referring to, as that policy is incredibly illogical, but I love the 'this is coming from an NS1 player' line.
<!--quoteo(post=2022813:date=Nov 13 2012, 07:20 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Nov 13 2012, 07:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2022813"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I was referring to Metacritics policy on not revising a posted review score, especially when the group issuing that rating no longer stands behind the rating.
Not sure what you're referring to, as that policy is incredibly illogical, but I love the 'this is coming from an NS1 player' line.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What's so illogical about it? It's a fair system. The same rules are in place for all games. Metacritics wouldn't be able to have a stable rating if critics flipped scores around. Maybe if we start a ###### storm over at Metacritics they will eventually crumble to the might of NS fanboys. How about it guys?
Every game has unfair reviews mucking up their metacritic score, it happens. They just need a few more critic scores to average it out, hopefully settling at 80+.
We got a complete overhaul on a review from a very popular games site. If anything I thought the new review was slightly TOO positive.
Dealing with having one lone bad score in metacritics is hardly ideal, but it's an alright middle ground. Sure, most people will click on the titles with the highest metacritic score. But the ones that do click on Natural Selection 2 will be able to see the one ###### that gave it a bum score, just like they'll be able to with any other title that have suffered the same thing.
We got a complete overhaul on a review from a very popular games site. If anything I thought the new review was slightly TOO positive.
Dealing with having one lone bad score in metacritics is hardly ideal, but it's an alright middle ground. Sure, most people will click on the titles with the highest metacritic score. But the ones that do click on Natural Selection 2 will be able to see the one ###### that gave it a bum score, just like they'll be able to with any other title that have suffered the same thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I like this logic. Metacritic screws over everyone, so we shouldn't be upset at metacritic for screwing over us as well!
Or maybe we should be upset at Metacritic SCREWING OVER EVERYONE!
ok, I guess I really don't like that logic at all!
<!--quoteo(post=2022875:date=Nov 14 2012, 12:01 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Swiftspear @ Nov 14 2012, 12:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2022875"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I like this logic. Metacritic screws over everyone, so we shouldn't be upset at metacritic for screwing over us as well!
Or maybe we should be upset at Metacritic SCREWING OVER EVERYONE!
ok, I guess I really don't like that logic at all!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not saying we shouldn't be a little bit pissed. But sh#t happens, and they cleaned up some of the sh#t already. If it's their policy, it's their policy. I understand where they're coming from. I'm not sure if I agree with it. But it can't be changed.
All getting up in arms about it now is going to do is show our community can't deal with a bad review. The review was harsh, and in an ideal world it shouldn't stay in the metacritic rankings, but calling out metacritic being one of the most evil organizations in gaming probably isn't the way to go about it.
Of course it can be changed. Their sh#tness doesn't reflect the sway they have in the games industry. They're the most looked at factor in games journalism. They are the soul review score referenced by steam, by far the biggest distribution platform in PC gaming. There's a dozen things that can be changed. Metacritics policies, metacritics scores, PC gamers respect for the company, Valve's utilization of their system.
I know NS isn't the first game to have something like this happen to it, but if it can happen to us it can happen to anyone, and this shouldn't have to happen to anyone. Metacritic is bad in it's current form. It's hurting game developers, is misinforming buyers, and it's hurting gaming, and I'll be damned if I'm going to roll over and do nothing about it!
Gamers aren't a tiny powerless blip. We've changed publishing by making kickstarter a thing, we've changed policies of a dozen gigantic companies over and over again. We've used review sites to smash big businesses for anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices. NS2 alone isn't going to shift continents. But at the same time, we're part of a bigger picture here as well, and I'm not willing to accept that our story just doesn't matter.
<!--quoteo(post=2022845:date=Nov 14 2012, 04:16 AM:name=theskulker)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (theskulker @ Nov 14 2012, 04:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2022845"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What's so illogical about it? It's a fair system. The same rules are in place for all games. Metacritics wouldn't be able to have a stable rating if critics flipped scores around. Maybe if we start a ###### storm over at Metacritics they will eventually crumble to the might of NS fanboys. How about it guys?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If reviewers were constantly "flipping" scores around, that would be one thing. But a reviewer changing a score, especially one as large as Gamespot, is a very rare event, and does not happen arbitrarily. Gamespot has admitted there were factual errors in the first review, and if it was enough for them to temporarily change their policy of not re reviewing games, then it should be enough for Metacritic to review their own policy. They talk about "critic protection", but apparently have no regard for developer or consumer protection. <!--quoteo(post=2022856:date=Nov 14 2012, 04:29 AM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ Nov 14 2012, 04:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2022856"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Every game has unfair reviews mucking up their metacritic score, it happens. They just need a few more critic scores to average it out, hopefully settling at 80+.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, but in the case of an indie developer like us, there is a much smaller number of reviewers who review the game, which skews the score on Metacritic disproportionally. We've tracked all the reviews we've gotten so far, and out of the well over 20 that we've received with a score of 80 - 100, only 7 have made it to Metacrtic, because of Metacritic's very limited and specific list of review sites that they work with. So, even if that 60 remains as the only score that is that low, it will likely continue to have a very large impact on the overall score.
We'd love to not have to be concerned with the Metacritic score, but Steam relies on it, and it can be an important factor when it comes to making business deals.
<!--coloro:#FFC0CB--><span style="color:#FFC0CB"><!--/coloro-->Cory is right to be concerned. This affects UWE as a business and also us gamers. It is unacceptable that such an important influence in the gaming industry has a complete disregard for developers and consumers.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
I'm sure this redundant and arbitrary, but has UWE contacted GameSpot and asked them to appeal Metacritic on their behalf? I haven't read through here but sparingly, so sorry if it's been done/suggested.
It's one thing for Metacritic to stand firm on an original review score because they don't want their reviewers "updating" and causing a constant flux of aggregate review scores... it's a totally different level of asinine stubbornness to refuse to adjust an original review score when the company deemed it incorrect by objective standards, retracted it and properly released a more accurate account.
They may care less to hear from the end business affected, but may listen more to a neutral editorial party who issued the retraction, such as GameSpot.
<!--quoteo(post=2022941:date=Nov 13 2012, 11:53 PM:name=Omar - The Wire)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Omar - The Wire @ Nov 13 2012, 11:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2022941"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm sure this redundant and arbitrary, but has UWE contacted GameSpot and asked them to appeal Metacritic on their behalf? I haven't read through here but sparingly, so sorry if it's been done/suggested.
It's one thing for Metacritic to stand firm on an original review score because they don't want their reviewers "updating" and causing a constant flux of aggregate review scores... it's a totally different level of asinine stubbornness to refuse to adjust an original review score when the company deemed it incorrect by objective standards, retracted it and properly released a more accurate account.
They may care less to hear from the end business affected, but may listen more to a neutral editorial party who issued the retraction, such as GameSpot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well done Gamespot on doing the right thing and re-reviewing.
But as noted by posters above, and discovered by Skuggan, this won't change the Metacritic score.
It gets worse though. I've done a bit of maths (probably way more simplified than metacritic's overall formulae - but then again, maybe not.) and have come to an unpleasent realisation.
based on the current scores we have: 91,90,85,80,80,80,80,60 the average is (should be) 80.75
But its 78. Then I looked at the '<a href="http://www.metacritic.com/about-metascores" target="_blank">how we score</a>' page and noted this little gem:
<i>Why the term “weighted average†matters
Metascore is a weighted average in that <b>we assign more importance, or weight, to some critics and publications than others</b>, based on their quality and overall stature. In addition, for music and movies, we also normalize the resulting scores (akin to "grading on a curve" in college), which prevents scores from clumping together.</i>
Ok, so 1: Gamespot is a 'respected' review site (in the views of the industry at least) and 2: they (by metacritic's admission) share a parent company. I'd say this is grounds for favourable 'weighting'.
As I don't know the weighting formula they use, I used the simplest option available: Count the review twice!
Adjusting the review scores to now be: 91,90,85,80,80,80,80,60<b>,60</b> we get an average of 78.44: which matches the Metacritic score quite closely.
Here's the Kicker: With this bad review score (which metacritic won't alter) counting double, even 10 more reviews coming in at the current median score of 80 will not pull the metacritic score back over 80. Thats how much damage Metacritic are doing.
Admittedly, we only need 2 further reviews at 90 to bring it back above 80.
If they use the new score gamespot applied (with the same weighting) we'd already be on 82.
<b>TL;DR = The Maths doesn't lie, Metacritic should be scourged from existence with <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsTRxXvQY0s" target="_blank"><!--coloro:#FF8C00--><span style="color:#FF8C00"><!--/coloro-->nuclear fire<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></a>. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF9Qk6m_b74" target="_blank"><!--coloro:#696969--><span style="color:#696969"><!--/coloro-->Also by Ninjas with lightsabers<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></a>.</b> :P
The Metacritic issue is quiet a large problem as the industry generally percieves any title under the 'magic' 80 to not be a good title. There was a fuss not that long ago when a large studio had as part of its job profiling a section requiring applicants to have worked on a title that scored 80 or higher on Metacritic, that requirement was soon scrapped and the whole affair laughed at but I believe it actually was a indication of how it works behind the scene. Did any of the applicants titles they worked on get 80 or higher on Metacritic ? (Even if its no longer a official requirement)
I also recall a company not recieving a bonus based purely on the fact it the title didnt reach 80, it only got 79.
The fact is that the industry is obsessed with numbers, marketing data, surveys, review scores, aggragates... and a seemingly small thing like 79 instead of 80 on Metacritic can be a costly affair in the industry. 80 means more sales, it means UWE staff can claim to have worked on a title that scored 80...
Comments
Except the way he wrote his article strongly suggested that you would have this five minute wait every time you load a match, which, again, is simply untrue if he played at least one match. Red herring is not going to make the inaccuracies in his articles go away. I would re-post my entire post to further elaborate as to why I made the single-game-ragequit assumption, but I have found that most people responding to my posts regarding this article just argue for the sake of arguing and resort to nothing but logical fallacies almost exclusively.
EDIT: This may only be the case on their mobile site. I get a 404 when I switch to desktop view. In any case, they definitely have not pulled the review on their mobile site.
8/10
Debate away!
Metacritic manually updates. It could take a day or two.
Edit - I stand corrected. See reply below mine. Hopefully they will change it.
According to skuggan who posted here they will not: <a href="http://uk.gamespot.com/news/natural-selection-2-review-pulled-6399748#lf_comment=43561962" target="_blank">http://uk.gamespot.com/news/natural-select...omment=43561962</a>
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Skuggan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Skuggan)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I e-mailed metacritic about the score. This is their answer:
"Metacritic does not pull reviews or scores - publications get one bite at the apple, and GameSpot knows this. We share a parent company. If they decide to bump up a score, lower a score, or not review it again, we stick with the first review and score. It's a critic protection measure."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty crappy if true especially considering the original article doesn't even exist anymore.
At the very least they should add a new Gamestop entry which the game's proper rating.
EDIT: oppps just read Skuggan's post......blegh
It's incredibly fair and this is coming from a NS1 player.
It's incredibly fair and this is coming from a NS1 player.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was referring to Metacritics policy on not revising a posted review score, especially when the group issuing that rating no longer stands behind the rating.
Not sure what you're referring to, as that policy is incredibly illogical, but I love the 'this is coming from an NS1 player' line.
Not sure what you're referring to, as that policy is incredibly illogical, but I love the 'this is coming from an NS1 player' line.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What's so illogical about it? It's a fair system. The same rules are in place for all games. Metacritics wouldn't be able to have a stable rating if critics flipped scores around.
Maybe if we start a ###### storm over at Metacritics they will eventually crumble to the might of NS fanboys. How about it guys?
I'll just leave this here. I'm hoping some of you guys can appreciate that public pressure is probably something that will help in this case....
We got a complete overhaul on a review from a very popular games site. If anything I thought the new review was slightly TOO positive.
Dealing with having one lone bad score in metacritics is hardly ideal, but it's an alright middle ground. Sure, most people will click on the titles with the highest metacritic score. But the ones that do click on Natural Selection 2 will be able to see the one ###### that gave it a bum score, just like they'll be able to with any other title that have suffered the same thing.
We got a complete overhaul on a review from a very popular games site. If anything I thought the new review was slightly TOO positive.
Dealing with having one lone bad score in metacritics is hardly ideal, but it's an alright middle ground. Sure, most people will click on the titles with the highest metacritic score. But the ones that do click on Natural Selection 2 will be able to see the one ###### that gave it a bum score, just like they'll be able to with any other title that have suffered the same thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like this logic. Metacritic screws over everyone, so we shouldn't be upset at metacritic for screwing over us as well!
Or maybe we should be upset at Metacritic SCREWING OVER EVERYONE!
ok, I guess I really don't like that logic at all!
Or maybe we should be upset at Metacritic SCREWING OVER EVERYONE!
ok, I guess I really don't like that logic at all!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not saying we shouldn't be a little bit pissed. But sh#t happens, and they cleaned up some of the sh#t already. If it's their policy, it's their policy. I understand where they're coming from. I'm not sure if I agree with it. But it can't be changed.
All getting up in arms about it now is going to do is show our community can't deal with a bad review. The review was harsh, and in an ideal world it shouldn't stay in the metacritic rankings, but calling out metacritic being one of the most evil organizations in gaming probably isn't the way to go about it.
They're a sh#t website anyway
I know NS isn't the first game to have something like this happen to it, but if it can happen to us it can happen to anyone, and this shouldn't have to happen to anyone. Metacritic is bad in it's current form. It's hurting game developers, is misinforming buyers, and it's hurting gaming, and I'll be damned if I'm going to roll over and do nothing about it!
Gamers aren't a tiny powerless blip. We've changed publishing by making kickstarter a thing, we've changed policies of a dozen gigantic companies over and over again. We've used review sites to smash big businesses for anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices. NS2 alone isn't going to shift continents. But at the same time, we're part of a bigger picture here as well, and I'm not willing to accept that our story just doesn't matter.
Maybe if we start a ###### storm over at Metacritics they will eventually crumble to the might of NS fanboys. How about it guys?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If reviewers were constantly "flipping" scores around, that would be one thing. But a reviewer changing a score, especially one as large as Gamespot, is a very rare event, and does not happen arbitrarily. Gamespot has admitted there were factual errors in the first review, and if it was enough for them to temporarily change their policy of not re reviewing games, then it should be enough for Metacritic to review their own policy. They talk about "critic protection", but apparently have no regard for developer or consumer protection.
<!--quoteo(post=2022856:date=Nov 14 2012, 04:29 AM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ Nov 14 2012, 04:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2022856"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Every game has unfair reviews mucking up their metacritic score, it happens. They just need a few more critic scores to average it out, hopefully settling at 80+.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but in the case of an indie developer like us, there is a much smaller number of reviewers who review the game, which skews the score on Metacritic disproportionally. We've tracked all the reviews we've gotten so far, and out of the well over 20 that we've received with a score of 80 - 100, only 7 have made it to Metacrtic, because of Metacritic's very limited and specific list of review sites that they work with. So, even if that 60 remains as the only score that is that low, it will likely continue to have a very large impact on the overall score.
We'd love to not have to be concerned with the Metacritic score, but Steam relies on it, and it can be an important factor when it comes to making business deals.
--Cory
It's one thing for Metacritic to stand firm on an original review score because they don't want their reviewers "updating" and causing a constant flux of aggregate review scores... it's a totally different level of asinine stubbornness to refuse to adjust an original review score when the company deemed it incorrect by objective standards, retracted it and properly released a more accurate account.
They may care less to hear from the end business affected, but may listen more to a neutral editorial party who issued the retraction, such as GameSpot.
It's one thing for Metacritic to stand firm on an original review score because they don't want their reviewers "updating" and causing a constant flux of aggregate review scores... it's a totally different level of asinine stubbornness to refuse to adjust an original review score when the company deemed it incorrect by objective standards, retracted it and properly released a more accurate account.
They may care less to hear from the end business affected, but may listen more to a neutral editorial party who issued the retraction, such as GameSpot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
VIVA LA REVOLUTION
But as noted by posters above, and discovered by Skuggan, this won't change the Metacritic score.
It gets worse though. I've done a bit of maths (probably way more simplified than metacritic's overall formulae - but then again, maybe not.) and have come to an unpleasent realisation.
based on the current scores we have: 91,90,85,80,80,80,80,60 the average is (should be) 80.75
But its 78. Then I looked at the '<a href="http://www.metacritic.com/about-metascores" target="_blank">how we score</a>' page and noted this little gem:
<i>Why the term “weighted average†matters
Metascore is a weighted average in that <b>we assign more importance, or weight, to some critics and publications than others</b>, based on their quality and overall stature. In addition, for music and movies, we also normalize the resulting scores (akin to "grading on a curve" in college), which prevents scores from clumping together.</i>
Ok, so
1: Gamespot is a 'respected' review site (in the views of the industry at least)
and
2: they (by metacritic's admission) share a parent company. I'd say this is grounds for favourable 'weighting'.
As I don't know the weighting formula they use, I used the simplest option available: Count the review twice!
Adjusting the review scores to now be: 91,90,85,80,80,80,80,60<b>,60</b> we get an average of 78.44: which matches the Metacritic score quite closely.
Here's the Kicker: With this bad review score (which metacritic won't alter) counting double, even 10 more reviews coming in at the current median score of 80 will not pull the metacritic score back over 80. Thats how much damage Metacritic are doing.
Admittedly, we only need 2 further reviews at 90 to bring it back above 80.
If they use the new score gamespot applied (with the same weighting) we'd already be on 82.
<b>TL;DR = The Maths doesn't lie, Metacritic should be scourged from existence with <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsTRxXvQY0s" target="_blank"><!--coloro:#FF8C00--><span style="color:#FF8C00"><!--/coloro-->nuclear fire<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></a>. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF9Qk6m_b74" target="_blank"><!--coloro:#696969--><span style="color:#696969"><!--/coloro-->Also by Ninjas with lightsabers<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></a>.</b> :P
There was a fuss not that long ago when a large studio had as part of its job profiling a section requiring applicants to have worked on a title that scored 80 or higher on Metacritic, that requirement was soon scrapped and the whole affair laughed at but I believe it actually was a indication of how it works behind the scene.
Did any of the applicants titles they worked on get 80 or higher on Metacritic ? (Even if its no longer a official requirement)
I also recall a company not recieving a bonus based purely on the fact it the title didnt reach 80, it only got 79.
The fact is that the industry is obsessed with numbers, marketing data, surveys, review scores, aggragates... and a seemingly small thing like 79 instead of 80 on Metacritic can be a costly affair in the industry.
80 means more sales, it means UWE staff can claim to have worked on a title that scored 80...
... its a big deal.