The video game industry has an unhealthy obsession with numbers, particularly the ones found on Metacritic, the review aggregator website that has become a de facto standard for measuring the quality of a video game. It’s come to a point that this fixation on scores has led to what a particularly beloved industry veteran describes as a stifling of creativity, leading to a homogenization of game design. Or, to put it simply, it encourages video game developers to make games that fit a certain mold just to get a high review score.
Goichi ‘Suda51’ Suda, the creative genius behind games like No More Heroes and the original Lollipop Chainsaw—neither Suda51 nor James Gunn are involved in the remake that’s getting plenty of attention these days—, recently voiced his concerns about the industry’s reliance on Metacritic scores.
In a candid interview with GamesIndustry.biz, Suda expressed his belief that game companies are putting too much stock in how their titles perform on the platform. He argues that this focus on scores has led to a formulaic approach to game design, where developers prioritize elements known to boost review scores over innovative or unique ideas.
Suda’s comments highlight a growing tension in the industry between creativity and marketability. He suggests that games that don’t fit into the established formula for high Metacritic scores often struggle to gain support from larger companies. This creates a cycle where innovative titles are less likely to receive backing, leading to fewer unique games on the market.
The impact of this score-centric approach extends beyond just game design. Some reports suggest that certain publishers, like Sony, tie developer bonuses to scores. Even though it has resulted in award-winning games such as The Last of Us Part 2, Uncharted 4: A Thief’s End and God of War: Ragnarok, this practice puts immense pressure on development teams and potentially encourages a risk-averse approach to game creation.
However, the issue isn’t just with developers and publishers. Many gamers use the scores as a quick way to gauge a game’s quality, often without reading the reviews. This has led to a culture where games are sometimes judged solely on their scores. The best example of this is Star Wars Outlaws, which, while not a perfect game, is an overall excellent experience that’s well worth your money if you’re into massive open worlds.
It’s worht noting that a game that receives a middling score might still be a favorite for players who appreciate its specific genre or style. Conversely, a highly-rated game might not resonate with every player, despite its critical acclaim.
Not to mention, with the rise of Games as a Service as a business model and post-launch updates, a game’s quality can change significantly over time, for better or for worse. Metacritic scores, which are typically based on launch reviews, may not reflect these changes, potentially misleading players about the current state of a game.
Despite these criticisms, Metacritic scores continue to hold significant sway in the industry. High scores are often touted in marketing materials, while low scores can impact a game’s commercial success. This creates a challenging environment for developers of niche or experimental games, who may struggle to achieve high scores despite creating engaging experiences for their target audience.
While providing a quick reference point for quality, Metacritic oversimplifies if not trivializes the complex and subjective nature of game enjoyment.
Ultimately, what Suda51 wants is that, instead of chasing a high review score, what developers should prioritize is creating unique, engaging experiences that leads to more diverse and innovative games.
