Which publisher gets the best review scores?

by Kyle Orland { Mar 4th 2008 at 5:55PM }

Ah, review scores. Besides letting us skip all that long, boring text that actually describes a game's high and low points, it also allows for some excellent statistical analysis and fanboy-infuriating numerical rankings. To that end, and spurred on by an similar EA-produced chart, Next-Gen's Matt Matthews crunched the GameRankings data and ranked the best-reviewed publishers of 2007.

Unsurprisingly, first parties Sony and Nintendo topped the list with averages above 75% -- not bad when you consider their production includes clunkers like Lair and Donkey Kong: Barrel Blast. Microsoft is slightly lower with a 69% average, behind top-ranked third-parties like Capcom, LucasArts, EA and, surprisingly enough, Atlus. Major publishers like Midway, Atari and Majesco stagnate near the bottom of the list -- none of the trio even breaks through the mediocre 60% average barrier.

The full story also breaks down the data going back to 2005 and also looks at changes in the sheer number of games released by various publishers. Check it out.

Tags: Microsoft, nintendo, publishers, ratings, reviews, scores, Sony

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)

Magetto @ Mar 4th 2008 6:00PM

I-i-impossible! I t-thought b-but according the the internet Sony doesn't have games yet alone beating out Nintendo araaaaghaghgah!!!

Kind of interesting though when you think about it. Sony makes more higher rated games than everyone else. One would think it be like Capcom or Nintendo - though I guess they are 2nd and 3rd respectively. Surprising EA ranked so high up there with how the everyone cries they're ruining the industry too.

Marty @ Mar 4th 2008 6:11PM

It's pretty easy to get a higher percentage when you have less games to begin with. Give 'em a few years of 3rd party garbage and they'll have leveled out right alongside everyone else.

Either that or Sony's buying more than just ad space on IGN these days...

loungemonkey @ Mar 4th 2008 6:16PM

Marty are you dumb? These are ranking PUBLISHERS not consoles. So where exactly would 3rd party games come into the mix? Oh they wouldn't.

cc123 @ Mar 4th 2008 6:17PM

@Marty

Why don't you actually read the article so you don't continue your flow of stupidity on this website?

WhoMe @ Mar 4th 2008 6:18PM

You are bitter, but your tears taste sweet sir!

Fatass of Kickassness @ Mar 4th 2008 6:25PM

What he meant is that Sony simply doesn't make as many games as, say, Nintendo does.

loungemonkey @ Mar 4th 2008 6:26PM

Sure didnt sound like it.

Marty @ Mar 4th 2008 6:29PM

Do you understand the difference between developers and publishers, loungemonkey?

cc123 @ Mar 4th 2008 6:34PM

@Fatass

If that was what he meant then he wouldn't have said "Give 'em a few years of 3rd party garbage and they'll have leveled out right alongside everyone else."

He saw a tiny bit of positive news for SCEA and jumped in with some asinine comment trying to undermine it like he does in EVERY Sony thread.

Marty @ Mar 4th 2008 6:40PM

Wow, way to interpret my actions. I did no such thing, I just noted the lack of games SCEA has actually published, and went on to say that once they have more games out,k the numbers will average better.

Why don't you check your master skills of deduction at the door next time, and avoid making any more embarrassingly wrong comments?

cc123 @ Mar 4th 2008 6:54PM

@Marty

What does "3rd party garbage" have to do with the average review scores for SCEA published games?

You're pathetic.

MGSLOL @ Mar 4th 2008 7:00PM

@cc123

Do you think the publisher develops every single game that they publish? No, of course they don't, so perhaps you should direct more of the foolish name-calling towards yourself.
2 hearts

maverick_saturn_626 @ Mar 4th 2008 7:11PM

Whether they have less or not Marty, they have scored well regardless, just because you make more does not mean you are autom automatically given the right to make crappy games.

DangerMouse @ Mar 4th 2008 7:12PM

cc123...

It's games that they have PUBLISHED! Not just ones they developed and published. It's not rocket science.

cc123 @ Mar 4th 2008 7:14PM

When we refer to 3rd party products we are always talking about games NOT published by SONY, MS, or Nintendo.

Correct me if I'm wrong but games developed by outside developers and published by the big three are second party games.

Don't try to change the meaning of 3rd party into something its not to excuse Marty's retarded comments.

dan stabbingworth @ Mar 4th 2008 7:27PM

And of course it was necessary to say all that like a douche, right cc123?

Cesaria @ Mar 4th 2008 7:30PM

I think what he means is if SCEA puts out ONE game all year and it gets a 10, then they'll get a 100%. If nintendo puts out a few 10s and a five, it lowers their score. All about the amount of games here. I could be totally wrong. It'd be nice to see a list of all the games, just for a basis.

cc123 @ Mar 4th 2008 7:31PM

To Marty?

Yes.

maverick_saturn_626 @ Mar 4th 2008 7:36PM

I think the basic conclusion here is:

Spend time and make better games, don't overflow us with 65% rated games and lower ¬_¬

FidliousWong (Oatmeal Defense Force) @ Mar 4th 2008 7:40PM

What Marty means is he misread the thread and did a half-assed snark. Then he got caught and all hell broke loose. And if people followed the link, they'd find this chart which shows number of releases across the various consoles and handhelds.

http://www.next-gen.biz/images/stories/mattsgraphs/by-the-numbers-005_html_13805c38.gif

Looks like Nintendo only released a couple more games than SCEA this year. So there goes those high scores balanced out by fewer releases.

tjlenz @ Mar 4th 2008 8:09PM

Lets not forget that games Published by Sony are not limited to the PS3. There actually happens to be two other systems that they are still making games for. If you finish reading the article(or if you read the article and not just the head line), you will find that they actually say that some publishers have many more games than others. The graph at the end of the article shows that publisher giant EA, published 100+ titles in 2007, while Nintendo and Sony had about 30. Lets read the article before making comments.

upz @ Mar 4th 2008 9:53PM

Looks like Fidlious just ended the argument with a single post. Well done.

Shon S. @ Mar 4th 2008 10:10PM

@FidliousWong

hmm... something interesting I saw in your chart. SCEA produced more games than Microsoft, but still managed to get the best average review scores. Just wanted to point that out...

FidliousWong (Oatmeal Defense Force) @ Mar 4th 2008 11:07PM

Shon S, I don't really see how that's any interesting point. After all, MS was publishing on two fronts (360 and PC) whereas Sony was dropping on three fronts (PS2, PS3, and PSP).

I find it a little unsettling that Sony published so little, especially considering how the sports titles go cross platform. PS3 is ramping up, PS2 is slowing down, but somehow PSP remains steady, but barely a focus. Seems PSP is being treated more as a platform to continue PS2 support rather than it's own thing outside of a couple examples. Which is sad. I genuinely love the system but sometimes it seems what it could be and what's made of it are two drastically different things.

Meanwhile, MS got two strikes against their score as they went multiplat with Shadowrun which was panned hard by 360 owners, and bashed harder on the PC side of things (where the love of all things Halo doesn't convert well either). MS published many top notch games this year but they also dropped some review bombs as well. I'm sure if Part Animals wasn't half-assed, MS's score could be higher. Likewise, Blue Dragon was critically panned and Tenchu Z was just abused. I can't remember, was Vampire Rain this year as well? And MS published Project Silpheed, did they not? And Gears certainly wasn't as universally loved by PC critics as it was console critics. Essentially you have a lot of good steps and some average steps and a fair amount of bad steps.

And even Nintendo dropped a few stinkers this year. But at the end of the day, everyone got good games this year and people who own multiple consoles got it even better.

NATO_Duke @ Mar 5th 2008 10:12AM

Yup - Vampire Rain was a 2007 game.

micklol @ Mar 5th 2008 1:07PM

hey marty where are you?

fwacce @ Mar 4th 2008 6:01PM

FLAME ON!

The Artist formally known as Jesus @ Mar 4th 2008 6:06PM

Don't do it!
You're going to hit supernova!

rv @ Mar 4th 2008 8:12PM

*golf clap*

jcd @ Mar 4th 2008 6:07PM

haha! take that Nintendo fanboys!

Now I'll go back to playing superior games on my playstation!

Fatass of Kickassness @ Mar 4th 2008 6:16PM

Now, I'm not saying either company is better than the other, but something I have noticed is that while every game Sony has contributed to (they don't contribute to many games, and when they do, they normally take backseat to the main developer) turns out good, Nintendo games run the gamut from assblastastic to just plain ass. However, Nintendo, at least in my opinion, has more of those assblastastic games than Sony does.

Assblastastic = good for those of you who are wondering wtf I'm talking about.

Fernando Rocker @ Mar 4th 2008 6:20PM

How many PS3 exclusives titles with an average score of 90 and above?

None.

Wii: Mario Galaxy, SSBB, Metroid...

Go and play your inferior games.

Mills and Boom @ Mar 4th 2008 6:23PM

Hold on, so you've somehow magically discounted the 2 highest rated games of all time; Ocarina of Time and Mario Galaxy?

How odd.

Raikage (LDF CRAB BATTLE!!!) @ Mar 4th 2008 6:26PM

Hey kids, just remember that this is talking about 2007 ONLY so play nice.

And tie your shoes Timmy for the millionth time!

Fatass of Kickassness @ Mar 4th 2008 6:27PM

Fernando, shaddup. That's blatant fanboyism if I've ever seen it.

Why can't gamers just, you know, get along? Fuckin' console allegiances are killing gaming more than a 'casual approach' (Wii) or a 'lack of games' (ps3) ever could.

Fernando Rocker @ Mar 4th 2008 6:27PM

Forgot to add Twilight Princess...

Four exclusives Wii titles with an average score of 90 and above vs zero PS3 titles above 90.

Fernando Rocker @ Mar 4th 2008 6:28PM

Sorry Fatass...

I thought we were friends =(

Fatass of Kickassness @ Mar 4th 2008 6:30PM

I agree with you more often than I disagree with ya, Fernando, but there's a limit to fanboyism, and you pass it quite frequently.

playwhutyalike @ Mar 4th 2008 6:30PM

Wow, like, that isn't a fanboy comment at all. Jackass.

jcd @ Mar 4th 2008 6:34PM

aha!

my ploy has revealed the identity of the Fanboys. Well, those besides fernando whom we all knew as a fanboy before. I'm talking about...

oh right, everybody else seems pretty normal

anyway...

The Artist formally known as Jesus @ Mar 4th 2008 6:49PM

Would Fernando be classified as a Nintendo fanboy or a Sony troll? Because lately I've been confused by this and I don't think you can be both.

Fernando Rocker @ Mar 4th 2008 6:52PM

Nintendo Fanboy!

I don't bash Sony like last year. =)

maverick_saturn_626 @ Mar 4th 2008 7:38PM

Comeon ladies, no need to pull at each others skirts, we can discuss this like gentlemen :)

phihexy27 @ Mar 4th 2008 8:04PM

Fernando:

"How many PS3 exclusives titles with an average score of 90 and above?

None.

Wii: Mario Galaxy, SSBB, Metroid...

Go and play your inferior games."

Good old Fernando, what a douche...

Gun Barrier @ Mar 4th 2008 10:18PM

actually, this list goes back to 2005, thats what the article says at the end.

kbomb1upc @ Mar 5th 2008 9:32AM

@Gun Barrier
No it doesn't. For those who can read, it says the full story goes back to 2005 not this chart. If you read the first paragraph again it said that this chart is only for 2007. The rest of the story goes back to 2005. Because Knowledge is power.