Support NeoGAF

[Einbroch]

That's why Nintendo is specifically taking both into account, rather than only taking critic's review or user reviews.

Which is a bit silly. Like I said, user scores are flimsy at best, misleading at worst. Look at Fez. Perfect examples.

The author of this game thinks you should pay him money for streaming it on twitch or making a youtube video with this game in it. So why would you support this in anyway? 1/10

User scores are rubbage. PS fanboys railing against Xbox versions, non-relevant facts bringing a game down, etc. On the flipside, look at games like Neptunia on the Vita. 66, but a 8.5 Metacritic. Some of those scores are Vita fans propping up their system that isn't selling. Similar to Wii U.

There's no denying that Nintendo makes quality games. That's not on trial. What I find dubious is using user scores. That's all.

"critic" scores are also way off base.

GTA IV - PS3 - 98/100
followed by
GTA IV: Gay Tony - PS3 - 89/100

That's simply madness. GTA IV on PS3 is almost unplayable because of the shitty framerate (and it's a bad game on top of that).

The user score (7.5/10, Gay Tony is 8.0/10 - at least that makes sense) is way more accurate than those "critic"

Spoiler

paid off

scores.

And then there is NieR sitting at 69/100 and the user score (8.4/10) is also way more accurate.

So if they agree with you, they're accurate. Got it.

 

[Deleted member 125677]

Using the metacritic is cheesy, but jesus christ that article was poorly written. What are you doing Kotaku?

 

[ReBurn]

When you create great software you don't have to worry about metascores.

 

[EdwardTeach]

Don't see the issue with this. The investors will want to be want to know that Nintendo are still producing well reviewed software. Metacritic is an easy way to gauge this. The fact that it is an aggregate removes some potential for bias. They won't give the leadership team a free pass because their games have been well reviewed, they will care primarily about how much money the company is making (or losing). Decent metacritic may reassure them that producing quality software is not the issue.

 

[Petrae]

By far the worst thing about this whole shenanigans. How can an outlet like Kotaku publish stuff like that?

It says a lot to me about quality control there and reflects as badly on senior editorial staff as it does the author.

 

[Beelzebufo]

Maybe he'd have even more to brag about if Polygon hadn't murdered Bayoneta 2's metascore with that awful review ffs.

Haha but seriously, what's wrong with this? The games do have higher Metascores than other games. He's not even talking about user scores here, like last time.

 

[random25]

I really dunno what's the drama here honestly. They did use the meta score from Metacritic, both from critics and users, but they did also say it's not an end-all, be-all thing but just as a reference to how their games reviewed. Plus, a lot of the featured games they said that got a great meta score sold well overall. So it's not just a numbers without context thing like how a lot of us here interpret review scores.

 

[Oregano]

Which is a bit silly. Like I said, user scores are flimsy at best, misleading at worst. Look at Fez. Perfect examples.



User scores are rubbage. PS fanboys railing against Xbox versions, non-relevant facts bringing a game down, etc. On the flipside, look at games like Neptunia on the Vita. 66, but a 8.5 Metacritic. Some of those scores are Vita fans propping up their system that isn't selling. Similar to Wii U.

There's no denying that Nintendo makes quality games. That's not on trial. What I find dubious is using user scores. That's all.



So if they agree with you, they're accurate. Got it.

You say that as if biases and non-relevant facts don't shit up professional reviews. The "It's not going to save the Wii U"-meme didn't come from nowhere.

You're also suggesting that user scores have dis-proportionally affected non-Nintendo platform games.

 

[DevilFox]

Oh, the infamous comparison pic that didn't take into account DD games and other things, iirc. I already expressed my dissent to this pathetic move back when that pic was shown in the old topic and I'm not sure this is a valid argument to bring to investors.
Also, I can't help but see this as "look, we score better where there's no competition!" which is part of the problem I guess (from the investor point of view, I mean) because it probably means that what you're doing isn't interesting to a big portion of the market and this is why the others invest few resources on them. Or, as I see it, people need the big hits to jump in (Destiny, COD, MGS, Halo, GT...) and only later you can sell your high scoring game to more people, and I'm sure they will like them. Steps should be followed, in my opinion, but Nintendon't, ever.

 

[Beelzebufo]

This is really irresponsible of Nintendo. Do they really want us to believe that good Metascores = Good game? In a world where MCC got got Metascores at first even though it was broken? I can't imagine the hubris needed to push this as the end-all-be-all-

When a brand-new title is released, there are often misconceptions at the outset, so I would not take the Metacritic.com Metascores and User Scores as the absolute tell-all index, but I do want us to do our best to release such highly evaluated titles in succession.

Oh. Never mind.

 

[Kouriozan]

Games don't sell hardware.

 

[10k]

So do most publishers.... I'm not seeing the big deal here. Just because some people on gaf hate it doesn't mean others in the industry do.

No matter how different Nintendo is or does, they are still a business.

 

[Beelzebufo]

Games don't sell hardware.

Although it's annecdotal, I bought a Wii U for Pikmin 3 (and the future Smash Bros) and literally just bought a PS4 for Bloodborne. Maybe I'm the exception

 

[Diddy Kong]

It's fine. I don't think the investors are GAF posters. lmao.

 

[CHC]

I don't why this is being made into a problem when the reality is that Iwata is pandering to a room full of numbers focused non-gamers. You have to have some kind of abstract metric and their games are fantastic - in this case the numbers indicate the truth.

 

[TheSlySoul]

User scores are rubbage.

Agree at least on Metacritic. VGRankings users are pretty fair though since you have to have a 500 word limit before publishing a review so you cannot drive-by rate something a 10 or 0.
I tend to use Amazon reviews in terms of user stuff. Metacritic is hot garbage with user reviews.

Games don't sell hardware.

Pretty much. Having a library means nothing in today's gaming world. PS4 still selling like hot cakes without an awesome exclusive yet.
Mostly it is wanting a powerful system that plays Madden and Call of Duty.

 

[ArtHands]

Kotaku stop crying plz.

 

[Toxi]

But do they have higher BioGamerGirl scores?

 

[Flying Toaster]

Another amazingly shitty article. When will there be quality editing and we'll crafted stories?

Honestly it's a shareholder meeting. Nintendo will do what they need to do to appease the shareholders.

 

[StarStabbedMoon]

Nintendo easily has the highest ratio of critical acclaim to software/consoles sold.

That article is seriously awful. Metacritic is flawed, but boasting about sales numbers is just as bad, and even less relevant to gamers, unless you think Madden whatever and Call of Duty whatever is better than everything under the sun. But that's what companies will do at every investor meeting. They run a business, deal with it.

The way gamers try to equate quality with financial success is so odd. I can't think of a single other creative entertainment medium that confuses the two concepts as much as video games do.

 

[CHC]

Games don't sell hardware.

Uhhh yes they do? When they're exclusives, anyway. Maybe one or two games won't, but it only takes a few great games to make a system worth buying. All the specs in the world don't matter if there is nothing compelling to play for it - or conversely, in the case of the Wii U, great games can redeem mediocre specs. I sure as hell would not have bought a Wii U if I could play Bayonetta 2 or Mario on my PC, but I was "sold" the hardware because of the games alone.

 

[Aaronrules380]

I don't why this is being made into a problem when the reality is that Iwata is pandering to a room full of numbers focused non-gamers. You have to have some kind of abstract metric and their games are fantastic - in this case the numbers indicate the truth.

Yep, like it or not, things like metascores are the quickest way to convey a general sense of quality that's ultimately less biased than cherry picking individual reviews, or even quotes from individual reviews, in order to convey the info. Iwata even admits that metascores are flawed and not the be all end all of quality in this same interview. But it's really the only reasonable way to convey info on quality in the alloted time and without the possibility of Nintendo skewing the information in their favor

 

[KainXVIII]

Who does not like it..(maybe only GAF)

 

[Erasus]

I mean ofc if reviewers are rating your games higher then the competition you point that out as an advantage.

 

[StarStabbedMoon]

Uhhh yes they do? When they're exclusives, anyway. Maybe one or two games won't, but it only takes a few great games to make a system worth buying. All the specs in the world don't matter if there is nothing compelling to play for it - or conversely, in the case of the Wii U, great games can redeem mediocre specs. I sure as hell would not have bought a Wii U if I could play Bayonetta 2 or Mario on my PC, but I was "sold" the hardware because of the games alone.

You may not have noticed, but the Wii U is not performing well, despite having better exclusives that are extremely well-regarded by critics. You and probably most of the people on gaf are the exception, but games don't matter anymore to common consumers. It's about the device and device features now.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Uhhh yes they do? When they're exclusives, anyway. Maybe one or two games won't, but it only takes a few great games to make a system worth buying. All the specs in the world don't matter if there is nothing compelling to play for it - or conversely, in the case of the Wii U, great games can redeem mediocre specs. I sure as hell would not have bought a Wii U if I could play Bayonetta 2 or Mario on my PC, but I was "sold" the hardware because of the games alone.

Do you have anything to back up your assertion that exclusives sell systems? Because by that logic, the Wii U probably has the best (critically acclaimed) library of the three consoles. So why isn't it selling like mad? Your anecdote about yourself seems to be an anomaly in the market today.

Most people seem to want a machine that they can use for the latest third party games (FIFA, CoD, Madden, BF, etc.) and media playback (Blu-Ray, Netflix, etc.). They also seem to want it to have high specs. If exclusives mattered so much, the Wii U would be running laps around the other two. But it's not.

 

[jariw]

Short version:
1. Miyamoto puts emphasis on the importance of quality of the (Wii U) games during the October 2014 Q&A for investors
2. NoA runs a marketing thing based on some metacritic scores at the end of 2014
3. For the February 17th investor meeting, NCL needs a way to reconnect to #1, and reuses #2 for that
4. Kotaku dislikes that Kotaku is not referenced at #3 (as the ultimate source for quality control)

 

[Interceptor]

NOA used it and so Iwata just discovered websites outside of Japan.

 

[Pyramid head]

What's the point of this shitty article, other than to desperately attempt to drum up a bit of manufactured outrage?

Does Brian Ashcraft seriously think Nintendo are the only company who wheel out a bunch of Metacritic scores in their company briefings?

I know for a fact Sony does, and I'd bet Microsoft have their fair share of Metacritic scores in their Powerpoint presentations too.

 

[Guamu]

Bear in mind, this is Nintendo taking advantage of the higher user scores that their games have. The critic scores taken by themselves (the number of games that have at least an 85 rating) don't show an awful lot of difference between the platforms.

This was addressed in the thread where the original metacritic ad was discussed:

Not only they eliminated most of the other company games. At the same time, saying "highly reviewed by both critics and users" to someone that doesn't really know (nor care) about how metacritic user's score work (the trolling, console warriors, etc), sounds really good.

 

[Nirolak]

Do people feel any of the games listed in that slide aren't good?

The good predictor seems to be doing its job here.

Obviously the user score is a silly inclusion since anyone can rate those for any reasons.

 

[Kouriozan]

When a brand-new title is released, there are often misconceptions at the outset, so I would not take the Metacritic.com Metascores and User Scores as the absolute tell-all index, but I do want us to do our best to release such highly evaluated titles in succession

Quoting again because it is worth quoting

I see, so it's just another jumping to conclusion without reading Iwata's statement.

 

[Pezus]

Nice of them not to count the dozens of 90+ multiplat titles not on Nintendo platforms

 

[axisofweevils]

I don't see the problem with this. Nintendo makes quality games (so much so that some people long for them to go third party). Of course, they're going to boast about this...

As someone else said, it is classic marketing 101. "Our Potatoes may not sell the most, but they're still the tastiest."

 

[Flying Toaster]

Nice of them not to count the dozens of 90+ multiplat titles not on Nintendo platforms

And why exactly would they do that?

 

[Pezus]

And why exactly would they do that?

"Great games make great gifts". Are the games the other consoles have that Nintendo doesn't not great because they are multiplat?

Edit: Oh damn, nvm. I see that NIntendo is actually including 8.5+ user scores as a requirement. Seriously, wtf lol. Metacritic is famous for its troll user scores, especially for XB and PS exclusive titles.

 

[Corronchilejano]

I have no issue with any of this. It is funny, however, how they use the user score to purposely cut off many dozen of their competitors' games when everyone knows user scores are a complete joke, propped up and brought down by fanboys.

They're not perfect but they're a good guide.

 

[Flying Toaster]

"Great games make great gifts". Are the games the other consoles have that Nintendo doesn't not great because they are multiplat?

And why would they do that again? Do you not understand the context of this meeting in the first place?

 

[Beelzebufo]

"Great games make great gifts". Are the games the other consoles have that Nintendo doesn't not great because they are multiplat?

Uh... Do you really not know why it might not be advantageous for Nintendo to advertise for other consoles?

I mean Rayman Legends being on there is already kinda close (bought it on PS4 because of the sale)!

 

[foltzie1]

Nice of them not to count the dozens of 90+ multiplat titles not on Nintendo platforms

They arent missing multi-platform titles, but they are comparing PS4, XB1, and Vita numbers and not PS360.

There arent any Xbox One titles that match their guidelines of 85+ plus a user score of 8.5. In fact most of these games on the other side are Vita games.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

They arent missing multi-platform titles, but they are comparing PS4, XB1, and Vita numbers and not PS360.

There arent any Xbox One titles that match their guidelines of 85+ plus a user score of 8.5. In fact most of these games on the other side are Vita games.

Of course they don't match that guideline. The guideline was specifically chosen to exclude good titles based on the known fanboy trolling that Metacritic suffers from.

 

[thefro]

Oh, the infamous comparison pic that didn't take into account DD games and other things, iirc. I already expressed my dissent to this pathetic move back when that pic was shown in the old topic and I'm not sure this is a valid argument to bring to investors.
Also, I can't help but see this as "look, we score better where there's no competition!" which is part of the problem I guess (from the investor point of view, I mean) because it probably means that what you're doing isn't interesting to a big portion of the market and this is why the others invest few resources on them. Or, as I see it, people need the big hits to jump in (Destiny, COD, MGS, Halo, GT...) and only later you can sell your high scoring game to more people, and I'm sure they will like them. Steps should be followed, in my opinion, but Nintendon't, ever.

Sony/Microsoft never use spin!

If anything, Nintendo needs to use more spin to promote their games and consoles. Sony & Microsoft have been able to get vastly increased sales because of it.

 

[Chû Totoro]

Nintendo really likes Metacritic

Really OP ?

Nintendo of America posted this picture on its official Facebook page at the end of last year.
It shows a list of packaged game titles that received a Metascore of 85 or more and a User Score of 8.5+ or more on Metacritic.com, which we can admit received high scores both from the professional reviewers and consumers.
For Nintendo’s current platforms, Nintendo 3DS and Wii U, 19 titles met these criteria. In contrast, the current platforms of other companies, PS4,Xbox One and PS Vita, totaled eight titles.
When a brand-new title is released, there are often misconceptions at the outset, so I would not take the Metacritic.com Metascores and User Scores as the absolute tell-all index, but I do want us to do our best to release such highly evaluated titles in succession.

Also, Nintendo of America tweet is different from "Nintendo Ltd. global policy and practices"

Edit : I'm not trying to say that your thread is a bad thing OP, just that the title can be excessive while thinking about Nintendo in general. I agree that they used it and they may use it again since it's one of the few "indicators" in their favor. Now I made my post because I'm happy that they don't think that Metacritic is the ultimate goal but keep making well received games is.

 

[Van Owen]

You have to think Nintendo is scrambling for any piece of positive news they can present at these things.

 

[Dr. Kaos]

Do people here not understand that "metacritic score" is just a shortcut for critical consensus and player consensus? The fact that it is used widely as an industry metric is a sign that people believe its data is accurate and truthful.

Do people hate on rottentomatoes and IMDB too?

 

[Visualante2]

Reggie's been doing this for years. Every time he gets backed into a corner about sales he talks about critical reception.

 

[casiopao]

Short version:
1. Miyamoto puts emphasis on the importance of quality of the (Wii U) games during the October 2014 Q&A for investors
2. NoA runs a marketing thing based on some metacritic scores at the end of 2014
3. For the February 17th investor meeting, NCL needs a way to reconnect to #1, and reuses #2 for that
4. Kotaku dislikes that Kotaku is not referenced at #3 (as the ultimate source for quality control)

I agree with this 100% lol.

And that Kotaku point...... "dead"

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Do people here not understand that "metacritic score" is just a shortcut for critical consensus and player consensus? The fact that it is used widely as an industry metric is a sign that people believe its data is accurate and truthful.

Do people hate on rottentomatoes and IMDB too?

It's a really terrible shortcut. Do Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB suffer from console warz?

 

[DevilFox]

Sony/Microsoft never use spin!

If anything, Nintendo needs to use more spin to promote their games and consoles. Sony & Microsoft have been able to get vastly increased sales because of it.

I agree that scores are good to sell to consumers, launch trailers are full of scores and review quotes, but to investors? Nope, I don't think so, and that's what Kotaku is talking about.
And if Sony or Microsoft ever did this, I doubt they put such restrictions to the list of games eligible.

 

[John Bender]

Really OP ?

What?
It's Kotaku's title!