Metacritic Now Rating Humans

Metacritic, whose 90s, 80s, 70s and dreaded 60s are points of pride and shame for the video game industry, will now be applying ratings to individual game developers, giving them a score based on an average of all the games they've worked on.

For an industry obsessed with applying arbitrary numbers to the subjective appraisal of two years worth of work, I foresee nooooooo problems extending this to the balance of someone's career.

Gamasutra, pointing out the new developer pages on Metacritic, quoted a skeptical (and anonymous) dev with six years in the industry. "Man, it's bad enough games are judged by Metacritic. Now I'm going to be, too?"

Yep, and not even accurately at first. Some complain that Metacritic is serving up an incomplete accounting of their work, and that is indeed the case, as the ratings draw from listings over on GameFAQs, owned by the same company that runs Metacritic. For example, Phil Frazier, a producer on the Madden NFL series and a 12 year veteran of EA Sports, is rated a 73 according to three versions of Madden NFL 09, one on the PS2 and another on the PSP. I'm sure he's delighted by that.

Metacritic is asking developers to submit additions and changes in their crediting to GameFAQs. Both sites have the same owner.

Other notable devs with scores include Cliff Bleszinski of Epic Games, pulling an 86 for his career average, but the big zit on his resume, for all to see, is 2005's Geist on the GameCube. Lionshead's Peter Molyneux has an 82; Ken Levine of Irrational Games is an 89.

If you want to see a score for a developer not linked here, Gamasutra says you can run the URL by swapping in his or her name in a first name-hyphen-last name format. For example, Denis Dyack. It's available for all developers credited in games with Metacritic listings.

I'm sure it's a matter of time before news releases start framing a publisher's acquisitions or a developer's hires in terms of landing the industry's first or only a 90-rated designer. How trustworthy that information is remains in question.

Metacritic Begins Aggregating Individual Developer Scores [Gamasutra]


Comments

    This is pathetic. Pity the developer making ends meet forced to design shovelware who won't even break the 50-mark.

    This can only be a bad thing. Why is this relevant? Most developers are forced to work on certain projects and have decision made for them from above which they wouldn't make and affect the game. If it's not a personal choice it shouldn't be attributed to a person(how much influence does marketing have over a game!). A score for the game isn't a reflection of an individual but an entire team. F-U metacritic.

    Start rating game reviewers and then adjusting the value of their scores accordingly.

    We'd suddenly see way fewer people giving two craps about the void that is Metacritic.

    You can get away ranking/reviewing 'products' like movies, music and games because reviews have been around forever and are accepted part of the purpose of media.

    But publically ranking individuals? I'm assuming with no permission from the people themselves. Defamation law suits anyone?

      We can say defamation, but I'm sure Metacritic would just say that they're just putting up aggregates of the scores of games that a developer has worked on and not a score of the developer him/herself, and therefore, not improperly harming one's reputation.

      And if people say "Oh, but you're being neglectful and only using a selected list of work that so-and-so worked on", Metacritic can say that their either working on it or that the developer hasn't provided the sufficient data to help them come out with an accurate aggregate... Or just use both excuses.

      But meh, I never go to MetaCritic for anything, anyway.Their rating system means oh so little to me.

      I'm just hoping the video games industry and community doesn't actually think that this is a valid method of judging a developer's worth or quality.

    Sounds like the "news" vendors trying to get their greedy hands into (heavily) influencing game stocks - but hey, I love a good conspiracy...

    Whoa whoa whoa...

    Why is Geist being considered a zit? It was awesome!

    This is pathetic. How unfair this is to people trying to break into the industry and those barley making it. They need to get rid of it so people can earn a living.

Join the discussion!