Company News David Gaider defeats Tim Cain

[Jason]

Tags: Tim Cain

<p>Guys, it's time to face facts: we've been backing the wrong horses all along. As <a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=33682" target="_blank">Gamasutra</a> points out, Metacritic now provides scores for individuals in the games industry.</p>
<blockquote>A developer's Metacritic profile shows his or her highest-scored title, his or her lowest-scored title, and an average score, along with a list of the individual games on which they've worked and the role they played therein.<br /><br />"Man, it's bad enough games are judged by Metacritic," quips one multiplayer designer with six years in the industry anonymously to Gamasutra. "Now I'm going to be, too?"</blockquote>
<p>This means we now have scientific, ironclad methods for deciding the relative worth of developers. And the numbers don't lie:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.metacritic.com/person/tim-cain" target="_blank">Tim Cain - 75</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.metacritic.com/person/julian-gollop" target="_blank">Julian Gollop - 76</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.metacritic.com/person/chris-avellone" target="_blank">Chris Avellone - 81</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.metacritic.com/person/david-gaider" target="_blank">David Gaider - 85</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.metacritic.com/person/todd-howard" target="_blank">Todd Howard - 89</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.metacritic.com/person/jeff-vogel" target="_blank">Jeff Vogel - ???</a></li>
</ul>
<p><br /><em>Thanks to CrunchyHemorrhoids</em></p>

 

[Fat Dragon]

Fuck that, Tim Cain will always be top dog.

 

[Konjad]

 

[JoKa]

at least todd howard isn't better than cain...wait

 

[made]

lol @ Lord British

Apparently he only ever worked on shitty MMOs and gets a 66 for his efforts.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

lol @ Lord British

Apparently he only ever worked on shitty MMOs and gets a 66 for his efforts.

Yeah, the underlying calculations are so flawed it isn't funny. Developers of older titles are boned in the ass, as Metacritic has little data on their (likely) best titles. Not to mention they are hit hard by review score inflation.

If anything, this might provoke a large backlash against the reviewing industry from developers who take offense to this...oh wait, who am I kidding? As long as the whores and cocaine flow, it's all good, huh?

 

[Rogue]

Man, it's bad enough games are judged by Metacritic

Yes, what an atrocity. People that pay for games have the audacity to actually judge them! And now they will be able to publicly say what they think of the people who make those games. How horrible.

 

[ironyuri]

In the Tim Cain section there's only Bloodlines and , Temple of Elemental Evil which averages his rating out to 75....

Why do they not aggregate/ average the review data across platforms for titles? Todd Howard has scores from each of the console iterations of each game, rather than an aggregate "Fallout 3 - %%" score. What the fuck is this shit?

 

[Pika-Cthulhu]

In the Tim Cain section there's only Bloodlines and , Temple of Elemental Evil which averages his rating out to 75....

Why do they not aggregate/ average the review data across platforms for titles? Todd Howard has scores from each of the console iterations of each game, rather than an aggregate "Fallout 3 - %%" score. What the fuck is this shit?

Pandering to the new (I do not want to type talent here, it seems so very wrong) developers, with their multiplatform release, they get a more paid for reviews to inflate their score.

Bad enough its a joke for games, now its a farce for developers. What of the devs who release the one hit wonder, then quit the industry, get to keep a high rating for the span of Metacritic.

Lies, Damned lies, and shitty statistics.

 

[Dr.Faust]

Man, it's bad enough games are judged by Metacritic

Yes, what an atrocity. People that pay for games have the audacity to actually judge them! And now they will be able to publicly say what they think of the people who make those games. How horrible.

I believe you misunderstood. There's nothing wrong with judging a game. The problem is in how it's done.

Metacritic makes the numbers more important than the actual reviews. A review is only really informative and valuable to you if you are already familiar with the reviewer or if she describes the problems with the game in very fine detail. Reading a lot of words is painful for some peopld and metacritic scores are short and simple so the result is a lot of people holding metacritic scores as some ultimate measure of a games worth and being generally dumb about it.

There are also some issues with the metacritic system itself like how it apparently doesn't include old games at all, how it counts the score from various scoring methods and how it doesn't include the scores from some sources for some games, but does for some other games.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Disgusting.

 

[Brother None]

There are also some issues with the metacritic system itself like how it apparently doesn't include old games at all, how it counts the score from various scoring methods and how it doesn't include the scores from some sources for some games, but does for some other games.

That's not even scratching the tip of the iceberg.

Metacritic uses some weird weighted system where some websites and magazines count more heavily towards the average "based on their stature". Is there a list available of these websites? Do we get to know how Metacritic decides? Hah, don't be ridiculous. GameSpot and Game Informer are more important because they're more important. And how does Metacritic decide what sites get on their list anyway? Fuck if I know. What, you think any site can be a Metacritic site? Hah! GOOD FUN!

At least GameRankings is somewhat rational in its behavior, Metacritic has always been about the whims of that asshole Doyle. This, of course, explains why the game publishers pay so much attention to it. An aggregate site that takes more high-quality but niche sites like GameInformer and its ilk into account as heavily as GameSpot is fun and all, but GameSpot reaches more people and thus simply is more important. Wait, I mean, "has more stature".

Metacritic is rancid dog anus. And a typical corporate tool. It's very much so worth ignoring as a consumer, unless you're, y'know, you belong to the GI/G4/GS/IGN mass of infinite cockgobblers.

To paraphrase a great movie: Metacritic? I've shit 'em

 

[Jools]

We should start giving ratings to aggregate-score sites...

 

[Black]

Metacritic is good only at showing how big the rift between cockmongling gaming journalists and players is, just look at "critic" score vs user score of many of overhyped AAA titles.

As for Gayder higher than Tim fucking Caine.

I want to be a vampire

Also, Bleszinski higher than Molyneux, even considering Pete's fuck-ups? No Prosper at all??
What a joke.

 

[easychord]

Todd Howard is better at making games than Sid Meier (86) while David Gaider is better at the art of computer game design than Will Wright (81). The numbers don't lie, game reviews are law.

 

[Haba]

Heh heh. Widely know fact is that several developers have their bonuses tied on the metacritic scores.

 

[Konjad]

I like statistics like that. They make RPGCodex exist, they make the feeling of despair of the industry, they make us rage. They make RPGCodex meaningful.

 

[oneself]

they should base career score on a average between user score and game journalist score. It should also show a distribution trend, and statistically show that the discrepancy between user score is it significant enough so it can or cannot be attributed to corporate blowjobs

 

[curry]

We should start giving ratings to aggregate-score sites...

This. What would it take to get RPGCodex ratings into metacritic?

 

[Micmu]

Lame to even have such pointless list. Developers from currently most popular (and lowest common denominator) companies get more points. Who knew.
But then again, T.C. works on fucking MMOs now rage, which is always -50 points.
Also:

Metacritic is rancid dog anus. And a typical corporate tool.

 

[zeitgeist]

We should start giving ratings to aggregate-score sites...

This. What would it take to get RPGCodex ratings into metacritic?

http://metacritic.custhelp.com/app/answ ... a_id/1511/

 

[commie]

I like statistics like that. They make RPGCodex exist, they make the feeling of despair of the industry, they make us rage. They make RPGCodex meaningful.

I'd rather RPGCodex not need to exist.

 

[racofer]

Ok, now is the time when we must take action.

We should massively incline MCA's score over there and keep it at a near 100 if possible.

 

[Nael]

I SEE THE FUTURE AND IT IS FULL OF POOR JUDGEMENT.

OHM. OHM. OHM.

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

Gaider? Isn't he the chap that works for that scrappy little developer...whatever the name was...?

As for the topic; what a surprise.

I am surprised that the user scores don't get 'tidied up' for certain games. That is a surprise. I wouldn't be shocked if that is on the 'to do' list somewhere over there.

 

[Brother None]

We should massively incline MCA's score over there and keep it at a near 100 if possible.

How could you do that? You're not a puhfursional, your opinion doesn't count.

 

[Volourn]

Metacritic fails again. Not because of the ctual scores but how they calcualte them. People have alreayd covered issues but here's another one.. They don't have all the games.. where's NWN on Gaider's list of credits as one example.

Stupid meta critic stupid.