EA Boss Is Perfectly Happy If His 'Pretty Good' Games Sell Too

John Riccitiello, the man at the top of publisher EA, has long stressed that "quality" is paramount under his reign at the company. But the CEO who normally loves to promote high Metacritic scores is also fine with "pretty good".

Asked yesterday about the review scores of the recently launched Medal of Honor - which is enjoying a pretty decent 75 out of 100 average on Metacritic - Riccitiello weighed in on the game's reviews and how the mass market, not the "core game reviewer" responded.

"First off, the game is rated mid-70s, almost 20 ratings rated 90 or above," Riccitiello said. "So as an observation, mid-70s is generally perceived to be pretty good. I think ultimately, what happened there and pretty much as we'd expected, the game appeals really well to a mass market, your average gamer."

"There is a small minority of folks, sometimes well represented by core gamer reviewers or game magazine reviewers, where best I can tell there's been 80 or 90 hours a week playing first person shooters," he continued. "They are very core to that segment, and some of them didn't like the title."

EA says Medal of honour, despite selling at a healthy pace so far, didn't meet its own quality needs.


Comments

    It was very big of him to resist stooping to revealing that they didn't bother to bribe reviewers as much as Activision will when Black Ops hits next month.

    MoH suffered from a single player dev team that concentrated too much on trying to make epic moments and incorporate all these extra litlle mini game bits (SOFLAN targetting, on rails driving) while neglecting core gameplay. Further DICE who did the multiplayer clearly have bigger fish to fry with Battlefield 3 and was content to deliver a solid but shallow MP game.

    As for Black ops, i think treyarch has learned a lot from where IW went wrong with MW2. Further several reviewers tore WaW apart so i think the metacritic aggregate may reflect a pretty true score for both games

    Metacritic is flawed for the very same reason Rotten Tomatoes shouldn't be the be all, end all, criteria for grading films. After all, it's the consumers who will be enjoying the games, not the gaming publications.

    For every Armand White with film, there's a Dave Halverson or other equally retarded reviewer whose scores skew the Metacritic numbers to either end.

      You're sort of missing the point of averages there. What you can argue though is that an average is not always the best way to rank something.

      Anyway reviews are a tool like any other, properly used they're wonderful, otherwise obviously not. The trick naturally is to find a reviewer who seems to have the same view as yourself, hence then a review becomes useful. If you look at a reviewer who despises rom coms to see what rom com you should watch next, well is it really the reviewers fault or yours?

Join the discussion!