That's exactly what I said. And if studying (or stating, whatever) who can be counted on to put out a better product, it should be done as a percent.
If I produce 1 game every 5 years, but it's always the best game at the time of it's release for every person on the planet (yes, impossible) than I can be counted on more than anyone else to produce a better product.
On the other hand, if I release hundreds of games, but they're all over the place, yet trending to the good, it's still hit or miss whether any product I produce will be better than the competition at that time.
The problem is, this rating system scores the "All over the place, but trends towards good. Fast release schedule." higher than "Always good. Slow release schedule." That isn't a measure of consistency at all.
It would be better if they took the percentage of games that fall into each category, multiply that by some scoring system, add the results and gave the score that way if they want to rate consitency.
Shouldn't a study like this, which is supposedly looking at which publishers put out the highest quality products, rate the publishers based on percentage in each category, and then score them that way?
I mean, I'm more likely to trust a Blizzard game by their grading system, seeing as nothing Blizzard has put out is below grade B, than a Rockstar game which has games of lower grades.
Get a head start on Star Trek Online's open beta with a little help from Massively
Jan 8th 2010 3:47PM (Massively)WoW 5th Anniversary Giveaway: Spectral Kitten loot code
Nov 23rd 2009 9:15AM (WoW)Verizon hosting Droid event on October 28
Oct 21st 2009 7:25PM (Engadget)Massively's Star Trek Online beta key giveaway
Sep 15th 2009 4:27PM (Massively)Ubisoft 'least consistent,' Rockstar 'most consistent,' concludes study of Metacritic
Mar 6th 2009 1:33AM (Joystiq)http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p4SrmSXJ3ywXR1R2ypiL9Lw
Ubisoft 'least consistent,' Rockstar 'most consistent,' concludes study of Metacritic
Mar 6th 2009 1:20AM (Joystiq)If I produce 1 game every 5 years, but it's always the best game at the time of it's release for every person on the planet (yes, impossible) than I can be counted on more than anyone else to produce a better product.
On the other hand, if I release hundreds of games, but they're all over the place, yet trending to the good, it's still hit or miss whether any product I produce will be better than the competition at that time.
The problem is, this rating system scores the "All over the place, but trends towards good. Fast release schedule." higher than "Always good. Slow release schedule." That isn't a measure of consistency at all.
It would be better if they took the percentage of games that fall into each category, multiply that by some scoring system, add the results and gave the score that way if they want to rate consitency.
Ubisoft 'least consistent,' Rockstar 'most consistent,' concludes study of Metacritic
Mar 5th 2009 7:25PM (Joystiq)I mean, I'm more likely to trust a Blizzard game by their grading system, seeing as nothing Blizzard has put out is below grade B, than a Rockstar game which has games of lower grades.
WoW Lead Systems Designer tells people to play other games
Feb 24th 2009 7:46PM (Massively)WoW Lead Systems Designer tells people to play other games
Feb 24th 2009 6:42PM (Massively)First Star Wars: The Old Republic gameplay footage debuts
Dec 12th 2008 4:02PM (Joystiq)The real question is why this is asked every single time new gameplay footage comes out for a very early build of a game.