John Riccitiello Has A Sulk Over EA's Review Scores

EA boss John Riccitiello is confused. Speaking at the *breath* William Blair & Company's 28th Annual Growth Stock Conference, he yearns for a day when Metacritic scores - for EA games, of course - were higher:

It used to be...All Metacritics were higher once upon a time because it was ten professionals rating them. Now, sort of anybody with a pen can rate them and it ends up with a bit of a wider track some times.

Uh, John? Think you got your Metacritics and your GameRankings mixed up. But hey, that's a simple mistake for the head of one of the industry's biggest companies to make. Totally understandable. What's a little less understandable is how he continues.

EA doesn't usually get the benefit of the cult - 'everybody has to rate it a hundred' thing going on - that happens sometimes even when they may not, based on the review, have played more than the first fifteen minutes of the game. But that's a separate issue

Poor John. Poor EA! Silly reviewers, not unanimously agreeing that any of EA's titles are of the calibre of something like Mario Galaxy or GTA IV. What a terrible, unprofessional oversight.

EA doesn't usually get benefit of the "cult" says CEO [GI.biz]


Comments

    There are a bunch of no namers giving out reviews that make it onto Metacritic, its actually quite sad because usually those smaller sites will give bad reviews to good games to get more hits.

    Are the higher up's in these large corporations really so naive? It never ceases to amaze me how these people seem to be genuinely surprised that the overly commercial tripe they produce never really resonates with the "hardcore" gaming community. The whole yearly released barely modified from the original in order to satisfy the bear drinking frat boy community business model has obviously never served EA well in the industry credibility area. Just because you sell 8 million copies of the newest Madden game a year doesn’t necessarily mean that what you are churning out is good. It simply means that the average consumers of these products are simply drawn to what they’re told is better.

    Take a look at a company like Valve or Bioware. These are (or in the case of Bioware “were”) companies with what is generally a fairly loose corporate structure (I remember Yahtzee taking a tour of Valve noting that no one there seems to have a specific job title). Whose goals are to create games which are truly great, not to create yet another generic product to satisfy the bottom line. Companies like these are truly the last bastions of creative vision and innovation (although never innovation for innovations sake). The result in almost every case is a generally positive reception from the wider community who have come to accept more from games then just “the latest version”. Games that are good are made by people who want to create something great, not by people who are told what needs to be made.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now