Eidos Trying to fix Tomb Raider: Underworld Metacritic Scores

[7th lutz]

http://kotaku.com/5095674/eidos-trying-to-fix-tomb-raider-underworld-metacritic-scores

According to the article, Eidos UK PR firm has confirmed that British sites planning on posting Tomb Raider: Underworld reviews with less than an 8.0 score are being asked to hold off posting them until Monday.

The Eidos Spokesperson Said " Edios is to get the Metacritic rating to be high, and the brand manager in the US that’s handling all of Tomb Raider has asked that we just manage the scores before the game is out, really, just to ensure that we don’t put people off buying the game".

[Bojay1997]

http://kotaku.com/5095674/eidos-trying-to-fix-tomb-raider-underworld-metacritic-scores

According to the article, Edios UK PR firm has confirmed that British sites planning on posting Tomb Raider: Underworld reviews with less than an 8.0 score are being asked to hold off posting them until Monday.

The Edios Spokesperson Said " Edios is to get the Metacritic rating to be high, and the brand manager in the US that’s handling all of Tomb Raider has asked that we just manage the scores before the game is out, really, just to ensure that we don’t put people off buying the game".

The most shocking part about this whole story is just how dumb the PR person is. If you're gonna engage in shady practices to hide bad reviews, at least be smart enough to not admit it when asked.

[Porksta]

Here is an easy solution that keeps people from posting bad reviews. It is really simple.

Step 1 - Don't make a shitty game.


There. One easy step.

[SegaAges]

Yeah, if they are that worried about scores, maybe they should stop making games with crappy camera angles and the likes.

[s1lence]

Thats a bummer, I enjoyed the last two Tomb Raiders.

[le geek]

Having read some under 8.0 reviews it still sounds like a good game if not without flaws, particularly if you crave more Tomb Raider, unlike Kane & Lynch.

It doesn't excuse Eidos PR from being clueless dicks though...

[Nebagram]

^^ Beat me to it with the Kane & Lynch references. Eidos are more sensitive than Jeff Minter at times, so it seems. :-/

[DeputyMoniker]

Here is an easy solution that keeps people from posting bad reviews. It is really simple.

Step 1 - Don't make a shitty game.


There. One easy step.

Does not compute.

[BHvrd]

Does Lara do naked handstands yet? If so I sure hope the lighting is good!

[c0ldb33r]

Does Lara do naked handstands yet? If so I sure hope the lighting is good!
That reminds me of the old nude raider hacks for TR 1 and 2. I know this is a no nudity board, but I don't think Lara's pixel boobs really count ;)

[roushimsx]

Man, you really gotta feel bad for the developers caught in the crossfire. I love Crystal Dynamics and IO Interactive and it's just a shame to see their work get knee jerk grudge fucked just because of the publisher and overzealous fanboys. Kane and Lynch wasn't nearly as bad as people made it out to be (especially the PC version) and I've got no doubts that Tomb Raider Underworld will be fun as well (I mean, other than their decision to only ship like half the game and presumably offer the rest as paid DLC...).

Actually, if anything is going to keep me from buying Tomb Raider, it's not the "Good but not Amazing" reviews, it's because I'm waiting for a rerelease that has all of the DLC bundled at a reduced price.

What really bums me out is that the bullshit over Kane and Lynch didn't just cost Gamespot and Eidos their credibility or Gertsmann his job, it looks like it killed Freedom Fighters 2 as well. :(

[davidbrit2]

Guess Eidos doesn't want you to find out the game sucks until after you've paid for it.

[roushimsx]

Guess Eidos doesn't want you to find out the game sucks until after you've paid for it.

That's dipping into "7 sucks, 8 is awesome" territory, which is a pretty bullshit mentality to have. Of course, it's the mentality that Eidos' UK PR apparently has, which I guess kind of explains things a bit.

PR lackeys :(

[DigitalSpace]

http://i38.tinypic.com/snyner.jpg

[Rogmeister]

I guess this means I shouldn't put this game on my PS2 Want List...that version doesn't come out until January according to Amazon.com's info.

[unwinddesign]

Eidos should stop with this crap. It just makes everyone want to buy their games less than they already do to begin with.

[davidbrit2]

That's dipping into "7 sucks, 8 is awesome" territory, which is a pretty bullshit mentality to have. Of course, it's the mentality that Eidos' UK PR apparently has, which I guess kind of explains things a bit.

PR lackeys :(

Yeah, plenty of people seem to need a good/bad boundary somewhere, and for many, that appears to be at the 7/8 boundary.

[esquire]

That's dipping into "7 sucks, 8 is awesome" territory, which is a pretty bullshit mentality to have. Of course, it's the mentality that Eidos' UK PR apparently has, which I guess kind of explains things a bit.

PR lackeys :(

While I agree, I think this is more of self-realization on Eidos' Marketing Department that in today's marketplace, 7's just won't sell as much as 8's or 9's. Yes, 7 is still a good score for a game. However, everything is relative. 1). The market is being flooded with new releases for the holiday season; 2) Many of these games are great titles with very good scores; 3) The economy is in the shitter and people aren't spending as much on themselves and probably doing likewise for Christmas gifts. All these factors mean less opportunities for your 7's to do well in the marketplace. It doesn't mean it's a crappy game. It all comes down to the almighty $$$. If a 7 score still meant the game would make the amount of profit they expect to make on the game, they could probably care less.

[Poofta!]

Here is an easy solution that keeps people from posting bad reviews. It is really simple.

Step 1 - Don't make a shitty game.


There. One easy step.

lmao. thank you, sir. it is stupefying how many publishers do not understand this, then go on a campaign to hide reviewer's words of wisdom

[kedawa]

Considering the fact that most reviewers ignore the lower half of the review scale anyway, 7 and 8 actually represent is 2/5 and 3/5, respectively.
Anything scoring 5/10 or lower is effectively a 0/5, as it basically means it isn't worth your time or your money.

[roushimsx]

Considering the fact that most reviewers ignore the lower half of the review scale anyway, 7 and 8 actually represent is 2/5 and 3/5, respectively.
Anything scoring 5/10 or lower is effectively a 0/5, as it basically means it isn't worth your time or your money.

Which is why almost every site worth a damn has bailed on the 10 (or worse, 100) point review system. The only one that even remotely uses it effectively is Eurogamer. Everyone else has long since migrated to something more meaningful, like the 5 star system or the letter grades.

Also, most reviewers tend to suck harder than the games that they're reviewing.

[Aussie2B]

A 5 star scale and a 10 point scales are virtually the same thing. Multiply the star by 2 and there you go. It's just that most consumers are, frankly, stupid, and when they see a star scale, they think "Oh, it's like the movies!" and they understand that a 3 star game is decent with redeemable qualities. However, when they see a 10 or 100 point scale, they start thinking of grade school percentages, so that same 3 star game is now a 5 or a 6 on a 10 point scale, and the same people think "Hey, this game sucks because that would be a D or an F in school!" The best thing we can do for these poor hopeless souls is not give them a score at all and force them to READ a review and come to their own conclusions, because I'm guessing they could use some more reading in their lives, anyway.

A good site that uses the 10 point scale correctly is Honestgamers.com. They may not be professionals, but it doesn't make a difference because their writing is generally more intelligent and insightful than what you get from the professionals anyway.

[XYXZYZ]

Just think of all the fixed ratings that don't get exposed.

[roushimsx]

A 5 star scale and a 10 point scales are virtually the same thing. Multiply the star by 2 and there you go.

Yes, but reviewers are more likely to actually use the full 5 star scale and it's easier to justify each star. I really grew to love it when I started using Netflix and rated movies I'd seen on there as "Hated it" "Didn't Like it" "Liked it" "Really Liked it" or "Loved it". Makes perfect sense and it shows how completely fucked up the 10 point system is (both in how it's meaningless and how people can't seem to use any more than the top 4 or 5 numbers). That just goes hand in hand with how most "reviewers" completely fail at their job.

It's even worse when they try to throw in a 100 point system. Gamespot really showed how worthless that was and its readership underlined it when they revolted on the GC and Wii Twilight Princess reviews.

[Aussie2B]

I agree, a 100 point system is totally moronic. Can anybody honestly determine what the difference between a 78 and a 79 is? It's just another example of trying to apply school logic to critic ratings, when they're completely incompatible.

A 10 point system is more reasonable because you can lay out a system for each point, and having used both 5 and 10, I do sometimes wish for a little more wiggle room when using a 5 point scale. I feel like I throw out way too many 3's and 4's, and I feel sometimes one 3 isn't on the same level as another 3, for example, but there isn't enough good or bad qualities to push one up or down a level. That's where a 5 and a 6 or a 7 and an 8 can be helpful. Once you get into the 1-4 areas, it's murky territory. Both 5 point and 10 point scales have their pros and cons, so it evens out to me.

But in the end, scores exist purely to cater to laziness. They basically tell you nothing because you have no idea where the score is coming from (what made the game lose or gain those points?) nor how the reviewer may be using the scale (such as when 7 becomes "average"), so I pity anyone actually putting down 60 bucks because of how many 7's, 8's, 9's, whatever they've seen. And as a reviewer, it's hard enough to get someone to actually want to read these days, so the last thing we want is yet another distraction to make someone ignore our hard work.

[DiabolicalAdvocate]

I agree, a 100 point system is totally moronic. Can anybody honestly determine what the difference between a 78 and a 79 is? It's just another example of trying to apply school logic to critic ratings, when they're completely incompatible.

But in the end, scores exist purely to cater to laziness. They basically tell you nothing because you have no idea where the score is coming from (what made the game lose or gain those points?) nor how the reviewer may be using the scale (such as when 7 becomes "average"), so I pity anyone actually putting down 60 bucks because of how many 7's, 8's, 9's, whatever they've seen.

Agreed. Numerical scores are meaningless in and of themselves and I don't think you can ever really quantify the experience of playing a game into a number.

All I really need is a brief pros and cons list, and some gameplay footage, and that's more than enough for me to determine whether or not I'll enjoy something. Even then, I tend to buy anything and everything that looks interesting to me eventually, but the pros and cons list help me determine whether a game gets purchased at launch, or the bargain bin treatment.

[kedawa]

Most 10 point systems in use now are in fact 100 point systems. The only difference is the placement of the decimal point.

I agree that there's no clear difference between a 78 and a 79, but the same holds true for scores of 7.8 and 7.9.

[smork]

This is why I don't buy almost any releases right at release day. The best reviews are always the reports of gamers who play the game for fun, not a reviewer trying to suck off a PR department to get free swag.

Life is long, I can wait a few weeks to play a new game until after I find out if people think it's actually any good.

[Sniderman]

This is why I don't buy almost any releases right at release day. The best reviews are always the reports of gamers who play the game for fun, not a reviewer trying to suck off a PR department to get free swag.

Life is long, I can wait a few weeks to play a new game until after I find out if people think it's actually any good.

Bingo. I always wait for reports here at DP or at other fan-based forums for my honest game reviews rather than buying something on release day based on a half-assed summary of a pre-release copy of a game.

[kupomogli]

The 10 or 100 point system doesn't work solely because it's either 7's or 8-10. Reviewers don't set the scores properly and 99% of the time you'll see 7/10-10/10.

With the five scale point system, you have 3/5 being average and it actually works. You'll actually see crappy games being reviewed 1/5 and 2/5, rather than everything being 7/10 whether it's crap or average or even good since most legitimate reviewers suck balls at gaming.