Moore says Metacritic not so relevant to Wii sales

?...
my name borat, i enjoy commentsings on internetssight joystick?

If you are a Casual game consumer, its not Metacritic that "sucks"; its game reviewers. What a core gamer likes is very different from what a 35 year old soccer mom looks for when they make a Wii game purchase; they won't care if some gamesite like Eurogamer gives EA Sports Active or Wii Fit a poor score.

Amazon reviews or getting a mention on Oprah is worth a lot more to them.

Good news, everyone!

26 new episodes. Can't wait.

So the rumors of the new season (and not another straight-to-DVD movie) are true?

Not only are the rumors true, but they're not even HALF as good as the truth.

Two new seasons. Not just one. TWO.

@ aristokrat: Just because most people aren't huge nerds like you are and don't do tons of research on every game they play doesn't make them an idiot. You are an idiot for thinking so. did it ever occur to you that maybe they don't care about games as much as you? Maybe games are a minor aspect in their life, whereas for you it's a major aspect, if not your whole life?

They see a commercial for Sports Active, or read about it in some non-gaming magazine, or see a demo on a TV show, decide it looks interesting and that it would fit into their workout routine, and they buy it. They buy it and they ENJOY it. Why does that make them an idiot? Step out into the real world for a minute where video games are not the most important thing in the universe and you will see that there are people who enjoy a lot of games that you think are no good, and that reviewers think are no good. SO WHAT? They don't care about games as much as you; if a game they buy ends up being mediocre to them, they don't really care because games are only a minor part of their lives. Get over yourself. Don't concern yourself about what other people like to play or what they buy, or whether they do research or not. Reviews are not the be-all-end-all for games.

If one friend buys Sports Active on a whim and really likes it, and recommends it to their friend who has similar interests and goals, that is far better than any reviewer fro many so-called games journalist.

Jimbotron:

Since when did making an informed purchase make you a nerd? Unless nerd = smart, in which case I guess you're right. Did you miss the part where I said I research every purchase I make, not just video games (perhaps it was lost in context, but I meant everything I buy, from games to electronics to sporting goods). If I'm spending money, I want to get the absolute most out of every dollar. Perhaps that's why I'm still living comfortably while tons of people are screwed with credit card debt supporting items they never use anymore.

If someone buys something, and they like it, great. I personally believe it is physically impossible to enjoy some of the crappy mini-game compilations that infest the Wii, and if those people had taken a minute or two online they could've discovered that there are at least better mini-game compilations. I guess some people are OK with mediocrity (actually, I guess the majority of the country is OK with it), but I don't.

I see you also missed the fact that reading about it in a magazine or hearing from a friend are forms of reviews. Seeing an ad is not, and if you bought everything you saw ads for you'd be a very sorry person.

Also, the delicious irony of one niche blog commenter calling out another niche blog commenter about their commitment to said niche. Researching a game is as simple as checking Metacritic and/or Amazon and then maybe reading a review or two. If that's too much to ask, I have some real estate down in Florida I'd love to tell you about.

Seriously, people part way too easily with their money. If 5 minutes of your time isn't worth determining if the $50 purchase is a good or bad, then you're either really rich or a certifiable idiot. Let me guess, do you also happen to have an ARM on your house?

@aristokrat : A lot of people like to buy a game on impulse in the store. A game isn't a large purchase compared to other things some people may get impulsive with. Often times its parents buying games for their young kids, and it's the kids picking the game based on what they see in the store. I don't know many 9 or 10-year-olds who research what games are good and what ones are not. And often it's also parents buying a game for their kids when the kid isn't there. If the parents aren't into games, they aren't likely to think to look up reviews online, and then try and figure out which sites are reliable and accurate.

As for Sports Active, that is not necessarily something you need a review for. If people see how it works and like that, that is all they need. It's not a game so much as an exercise tool. If they like the exercises involved, that is all they care about. There is no gameplay as with other titles. Just because you research every single thing you buy (which makes snes with more costly items like electronics and so forth), does not mean everyone else is obligated to, nor does it mean they are idiots for not doing so when it comes to buying games. If they buy enough games blindly that they end up really disliking, they will eventually start researching before they buy.

The idiocy of your post astounds me. Not looking at a metacritic score makes someone an idiot? You seem to be trapped in a dream world where the only people who are not idiots follow your arbitrary definition of "hardcore."

I'm a PC gamer who upgrades regularly and plays a huge variety of "hardcore" titles. I also use metacritic scores all the time, and I think your post was idiotic.

No they're not idiots for avoiding metacritic, they're idiots for buying the games that they do like that one up there.

It'd be nice if they did do some form of research before buying games other than "Oooh box pretty, me like box"

Well, to be fair, EA Active is like at 83 on metacritic, which isn't bad.

People buying sports active aren't anything like the types of gamers that actually frequent gaming blogs. It's a different audience, which I'm sure is obvious to you. The demographic buying sports active isn't interested in the same games you are, which I'm sure is obvious to you. They're not idiots for buying sports active, it means they don't mind integrating a video game type thing into their workout routine, which I'm sure you can't remotely relate to. As Shag points out below, the casuals that are buying this don't care about reviews. You're just missing the point.

"If metacritic meant anything to sales at all, then nothing would sell at all on the wii." is a remarkably asinine statement as well, but we all know how much you love to troll, and you were well aware that's what you were doing anyway. I honestly could care less if you rip on sports active, since the game is quite an outlier and not worth considering to be in the regular realm of games at all. Everyone knows that. But you finished off with such a remarkably stupid statement.

You're wright WRE! AN 83 IS THE SUCKSORS!!! honestly people. why cant you just let people buy what they want regaurdless of what critics say. Why must everyone be so anal about what other people like? Who cares? You like ps3, she likes xbox, I like the wii. Does it really make you not sleep at night knowing that there's some drunk guys out there buying Pong Toss and some 8 year old kid really enjoys Dave Mirra's BMX Challange? You should all go back to your Halo and GTA and let people buy and play and ENJOY whatever videogames they want.

Did someone here form a blockade to stop people from buying what they want? I missed out I guess.

I have to agree with the anger over publishers making crap, putting it in a pretty box, and then someone buying it because of that alone. Sure, it doesn't stop me from playing anything I like, but it sure as hell tells the publishers to keep making crap because people will buy it without thinking.

Metacritic has long shown that it has become defunct in the new age of Wii software. Elitists who get paid to pontificate to a like-minded audience, and out of touch with mainstream values.

Did you misunderstand my post, Jay?

"Moore says that the people buying casual games and health titles like EA Sports Active aren't getting their info from Metacritic."

He is right. A more accurate statement would be " The people buying casual games and health titles like EA Sports Active are getting their info from the back of the box, Oprah, or a friend who also hasn't done their homework. " It's kinda sad that consumers don't put more "effort" into parting with their money. And that goes for every industry.

I may not agree with tmac's bashing of Nintendo (and most of you can't seem to leave that at the door when he does make a reasonable comment), but I see nothing wrong with calling someone who buys a game without researching it an idiot. I research just about every purchase I make, and I know there aren't as many people to whom $40-50 is pocket change as there people who flock to buy crappy games.

This is a symptom of a greater problem, as there are too many idiots who keep "As Seen on TV" products in business, who fall for easy phishing scams, etc. They buy things, complain when they don't work, and then go buy more crappy things.

I think it's a shame that Metacritic doesn't correlate more closely with sales (even though I know it's somewhat flawed, it's a good starting point for sure), because there are good games at the top of EVERY genre on Metacritic that get beaten by worse ones because of stupid people. Good games should sell better than bad ones every day of the week.

*when he does make a reasonable comment

Important qualifier, because he rarely does. If commenters had metacritic scores, his would be in the red, in the teens, as 'universal negative opinions, irrational, troll'.

Kudos to you for researching every purchase you make, but take the gaming blog commenter shades off, as the mass populace that buys video games don't research their purchases beforehand. That doesn't necessarily make them idiots, although I suppose it makes it easy for all of us here to look down upon them and be judgmental.

I certainly can't argue that good games should sell better than bad ones, but saying metacritic scores should correlate to sales? Really? We should all be sheep and gobble up whatever gaming journalists want us to buy? They should be the judges, not consumers?

Markez:

I did not mean that we should only buy what critics say are good, but on average, wouldn't you agree that the best reviewed games are the best? Therefore, if someone makes a truly good game, it should both sell and review well in an ideal world. I think metacritic for all its faults is still fairly accurate, but I always read a review or 2 also. I'm not saying this is a chicken-and-egg situation, but rather both outcomes should be correlated to the quality of the game.

Also, as I exclaimed to the mis-firing Jimbo above (and I can see where the confusion arose), I meant that I research every purchase (not just video games), when an item costs enough. Even if it's just as simple as looking at the average score on Amazon (as Moore suggests) and reading a few comments there to see if there is a better alternative, I always get some outside input. In the age of the internet, there is no excuse for ill-informed purchases when 5 minutes of time can tell you whether or not to the $50 you spent 2-6 hours earning is worth what you're getting. The only excuse I see for not doing that is if the time you spent is worth more than the money you might save/spend, in which case I'm sorry Mr. Trump, but not everyone works at a job that pays them $1000/hour.

Nah, all good points of course. Metacritic probably is in many ways suitable enough to give people a fair idea of what is worth their gaming dollars. But were we to really use it as that accurate a gauge of what to buy we'd all be missing out on some fun enjoyable games.

And while I think few of us are likely Trumps when it comes to gaming/leisure purchases, we probably still spend way more than most folks on this type of thing. However there are still times when either my girlfriend or myself want to make an impulse game purchase and regrettably don't have a resource to fall back on for reviews.

Not everyone comes to Joystiq for the nice pictures, y'know.

Well they certainly don't come here for the hard hitting journalism! Zing!

I would upvote you flamingeffigy but I'm worried Joystiq has something built into their comment system that is going to ban anyone upgrading your post.

Yes, they must have spent all their time on that, which would explain why the reply button still can't figure out which post the replies go under.

It's only the number 1 selling game because it's a good deal for first time buyers.

Wii Remote: $39.99
Wii Play: $49.99

Consumer: "So for 10 more bucks I get a bunch of games and maybe 2 of them are fun? Sold!"

They get their information from commercials. Same way most people get their information about everything.

Most of the time that's not too bad, because most game companies don't advertise their really bad games (only exception is during kids shows). Though it does mean they miss out on a lot.

Reviews in the mainstream media.

these days every magazine (Maxim, women's magazines, etc..) has game reviews, every newspaper has game reviews, lots of websites NOT aimed only at gamers have game reviews.

Even about 10 years ago when i last read it, Maxim's game reviews weren't remotely connected to "gamer" game review scores... but they are probably much better connected to their target audience.

If you think about it, it makes more sense to get your game reviews from a source that is for people like you than from a "games" site. Because not all people who play games like the same things...

It's true, most casual gamers don't look at reviews and the like. That's one of the characteristics that places them in that category. But in these times, with games being as expensive as they are, they really should. Even it's doing something as simple as watching gameplay for a game they might be interested in. Looking at the back of a box is one thing. They doctor those screenshots up and make them more appealing, but watching video of the game in motion tells so much more. And for me, if I can't see the game in action, I won't commit to it. Tony Hawk Ride is a perfect example. Imagine how many little kids are going bat shit crazy for that game right now. And all they've seen as someone standing on a board sliding in across a rug and then the camera cutting to game play. You never really see someone standing on the board and the game being played at the same time. It's all an illusion at this point. But the hype has been created and people will buy it without even thinking now.

The real problem is that you used to be able to walk into a game store, look at the back of the box, thing "this sounds like it could be fun," take the game home, and actually HAVE fun.

Now, you simply can't do that anymore.

Oh man. Back in the day some of my favorite games were bought just by reading the back of the box. Why DOESN'T that work anymore?

I've ignored reviews for a long, long time (well before Wii, mind, i've never seen a review outlet thats been consistently in touch with what i enjoy)

This is not a qualifier for a casual gamer

The people buying Wii games aren't necessarily actively looking for info about the "games" they buy (I put that in quotes to reflect things like Wii fit and the like). They get their info from mainstream sources like the nightly news or Oprah. They'll buy something based on it's buzz more than critical reviews of said item.
Anyway, it's similar to how poorly reviewed movies still rake in the dough from the general public. It's all middling entertainment that appeals to a mass audience.

Allow me to translate:

You've got to hate those stupid, waste-of-money, casual game developers. They don't care about the game's replay value or replayability. And the customer, well they just buy this shovelware without any regard to how much money the game costs and then play it once. The consumer is only encouraging the companies to be lazy and produce this garbage. But, whatever, these types of games help the economy.

How'd I do, Victor?

Except there are plenty of top selling non-compromising "gamer" games on the market. Sure, there are many great games that get screwed in sales, but this is by far the rule, and more the exception.

Casual games will always exist as well, because game companies are businesses, and making profit is in their best interest. The same way cheesy movies are released all year round, because they'll make a good turnaround.

Either way, I'm not seeing this crash of the industry anywhere in the picture.

You've definitely got the right thoughts about it Sagg. But I don't really foresee a crash. I do agree that people are forgetting what games are all about: Fun. It used to be that playing a video game or being a gamer was frowned upon by society, much the way television was during it's inception. Now, playing video games has to be productive. It has to be a job. When did video games go from being about wasting time on Saturday when you should be doing homework or cutting the lawn or making sure you burned enough calories for the week? With exception, a lot of the industry has completely lost focus of that. Everything has to be politically correct, and rated. And for a lot of developers, it's all about how much money can be raked in the next fiscal year. Nevermind being pioneers of your industry or creating the next best action or adventure franchise, let's see how many times (sorry Koei, but you're easy) we can milk the Dynasty Warriors franchise before it dries up. Eventually there's going to be nothing left to play but Mario Party 20 and Halo 10.