Gamasutra-Creative Assembly's 'fairly brutal' approach to achieving high Metacritic scores

[Durnaug]

Pretty much this. I can also add an example to prove your point.

I have a Bachelors degree in Business Management. But I studied in a uni which encouraged learning process, and not producing grads en masse. When there was a competition of product launch, we (under grads) were able to beat 10 teams from MBA colleges (post grads) for the first place. Why? Simple, we simply used a product concept we knew about hands on. Which shows that a person who spent a lot of time designing toothbrushes is pretty much likely to suck big time if asked to design cars.

End point, having MBA people is good as it brings efficiency in business. But there needs to be MBA people who not only play games but also know how games go. And that is something hard to find.

Several decades of research into software design show that you need proper user data to create a successful product - this applies to games as much as it does to business applications. User-Centred Design methodologies evaluate and inform the development of form and function; usability and usefulness. Basing your final cut on "games reviewer" roleplaying and metacritic benchmarks does not strike me as user data, just the possible opinions of business insiders who might have an interest in the financial success of the game but wouldn't have a clue what they want from the game.

They should have released a demo - would have generated a ton of user data. Did they beta test with users? I cannot recall a beta version being announced. And no, what they released version is not the beta version (just nipping that joke in the bud ;-)) - it is what remains of the beta version after the bizarro metacritic evaluation sessions.

[KarlVytautas]

Using metacritic a a means of reviewing and assessing a game is just dumb, stupid and building your game with the notion of having a high metacritic score is even more dumb stupid and downright idiotic.
CA just confirmed that they are seriously brain dead at the moment and inept at making an adequate game if their policy for making it is this.
I never thought CA would show off their stupidity in such a manner after releasing rome 2 but Tim Heaton just put the cherry on the cake with this article.

[Leeham991]

Like all industry these days the customer doesn't matter. It's all about making money and winning awards.

Nobody enjoys a meal which costs £50 a head and is 4 courses which amount to about 1.5 mouths full each, but those meals will still get the best rating from critics.

Nobody wants a broken game with no depth, features or playability, but as long as that game looks right as has the 'correct' marketing it will still get the best ratings from critics.

[SirRobin]

The best marketing is by word of mouth about a great product. I don't get why that seems so difficult to understand...

[bigfootedfred]

main threads on this

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...talks-about-CA

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...on-s-customers

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...st-for-ratings

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...otal-Metawhore

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-on-Metacritic

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...istics-thread)


from .com

http://forums.totalwar.com/showthrea...ewer-strategy?

[raest]

once again, i really don't understand this morbid dependence on metacritic: the "professional" scores they produce, are in direct relation with the money/incentives you gave them (aka PR or "marketing" nowadays)... so designing a game (or anything, really) around people (i.e. so called "professional" "journalists" that are even more ill-suited at reviewing games [or anything, really] than corporate suits are at making creative decisions) that you pay/incentivise (lol, new word ) to give high review scores, so that they give you high review scores seems... abso-frigging-lutely, mind-boggingly, pants-on-head retarded (even for MBAs and their despicable ilk). i mean, holy batman, if you want better scores on metacritic, just pay those reviewers a bit more! if you want better user scores from metacritic... just make a goddamn better game without obnoxious, idiotic design decisions (and beta test the god-damned thing before release)

i don't know what they teach in these MBA schools, but if this Tim Heaton is any indication, "logic", "common sense" and "business acumen" surely aren't

[Vilkas09]

i don't know what they teach in these MBA schools, but if this Tim Heaton is any indication, "logic", "common sense" and "business acumen" surely aren't

Tim Heaton came from "Worst Company in America" . It explains many thing. This guy is typical corporate money maker working to get annual bonuses, he has no idea about games or creative approaches.

[Inhuman One]

Developers should be more like rockstar. Just do their thing to perfection and not give a about publishers, reviewers and others concerned. No dumbing down, just improving the GTA franchise with each installment with new features of good quality instead of crap features nobody ever asked for and nobody ever wanted.

[Dago Red]

Explains why there are axe marks all over this game. Any fool can see it is a hacked apart wreck of forgotten standards, ineptly implemented features and vapid design.

[Durnaug]

Explains why there are axe marks all over this game.

A perfect laconic judgement on the situation.

[musketeer101]

It really annoys me how CA have apparently built this game. Instead of having a defined set of features that they want, they just said "Nope. If it's not 100% by next week it's cut". I'm all for dynamic development, but it's not good economically to spend hundreds of combined man hours on features that are just stripped from the game. And as people have pointed out, these "100%" features they have aren't even complete.

I think we can blame Rome II's overall lack of awesome on poor management, along with other things. It feels like a base-level game to me. Sure, they've got the FPS artillery thing, but there's no real innovative and interesting stuff in the game.

[daelin4]

Yeah they should really have made a list of things to have in the game after making sure they'd make it a good game, then stick to it. Once you start chopping up things you planned for the game, other elements will be compromised.

I mean just one example is the AI. None of all the features they would have wanted in the game, working perfectly, would compensate for AI. Hell it's clear that there are some features that are designed just to HIDE the AI's incompetence, re capture points and torches, and free transports.

[AngryTitusPullo]

It's simple principle actually. Good previews ensures good sales. Good sales ensures that there's balance for new projects and the cycle repeats itself. By the time CA/SEGA announce a new game in a few years time many would have forgotten dates around September - October 2013 much like many who had already forgotten the dates around March - April 2009. The who still remember have long gone and will not be here anymore.

That's why 'professional' metacritics and online/magazine previews are important to have positive reviews.