Developers look at Metacritc more than GotY.

Game of the Year for developers seems to be more like thanks for the memories and a feather in the hat where as Metacritic and its ilk seems to still play a major roll in a developers life after release.
 
Will the concurrent scoring mechanism still reign supreme in the future? Will developers look ominously at the score and allow them to be apart of the business of video games? Is GotY nothing more than entertainment and a quote for the next video game edition?
 
I've been entertained by the GotY behemoth, but are the developers? Hell, their quarter is not up, so they probably don't care. Scores, money and dare I say it... trends are their wishes with releases.
 
I'm not bashing Metacritic for I find it a nice resource for video game websites and reviews, just things to think about within the realm of video game critique.

Game of the Year for developers seems to be more like thanks for the memories and a feather in the hat where as Metacritic and its ilk seems to still play a major roll in a developers life after release.
 
Will the concurrent scoring mechanism still reign supreme in the future? Will developers look ominously at the score and allow them to be apart of the business of video games? Is GotY nothing more than entertainment and a quote for the next video game edition?
 
I've been entertained by the GotY behemoth, but are the developers? Hell, their quarter is not up, so they probably don't care. Scores, money and dare I say it... trends are their wishes with releases.
 
I'm not bashing Metacritic for I find it a nice resource for video game websites and reviews, just things to think about within the realm of video game critique.

They probably view GOTY as opinions while Metacritic is more of an average score of a lot of people's opinions. Either way, Metacritic is balls.

I hate number scores. They are great for the average consumer, but reviewers write reviews for a reason: for people to read them.

Both are pointless...

Pretty sure GOTY is strictly here for the viewers benefit, not for the developer's.

From what I have absorbed from podcasts, articles, etc... Metacritic isn't looked at by developers that much.  They actually like to read the reviews.  Publishers are the ones who try to make future decisions off of current Metacritic scores, as excel spreadsheets can understand numbers.  Reviewer opinions... not so much.

" From what I have absorbed from podcasts, articles, etc... Metacritic isn't looked at by developers that much.  They actually like to read the reviews.  Publishers are the ones who try to make future decisions off of current Metacritic scores, as excel spreadsheets can understand numbers.  Reviewer opinions... not so much. "

Um....do you have any sort of proof? I'm not sure game commercials citing scores count, because:
 

• they're not specific to MetaCritic, and
• they still put GOTY/Editor's Choice awards in those same ads.
  

" Pretty sure GOTY is strictly here for the viewers benefit, not for the developer's. "

" @Milkman said:

" Pretty sure GOTY is strictly here for the viewers benefit, not for the developer's. "

This.  I highly doubt developers really give two shit if some website gave them Game of the Year or not. "

They care alot cause that's another thing to put on their box and ya they care about the score cause thats something they can say when their game may not sell as well.

I would think developers look to Metacritic more than the many GOTY awards because of pure numbers. Only a handful of games really get considered for Game of the Year, but there are always going to be dozens and dozens of games that score above 75 on Metacritic. Lots of developers could say our game reviewed well while maybe 4 or 5 developers can claim to winning multiple Game of the Year awards.

Meta averages don't show up on boxes, individual reviews do. Smart devs don't need a large volume of validation, they just need it from the right sources. Kind of like smart consumers. Devs and consumers that put so much stock in Metacritic are just fools, plain and simple.

Metacritic is only used by devs as something to pass off in interviews.  They feed the beast yaknow.

I think it's good to use Metacritic, since you've got so much in one to judge from then.

" I would think developers look to Metacritic more than the many GOTY awards because of pure numbers. "

" @Dalai said:

" I would think developers look to Metacritic more than the many GOTY awards because of pure numbers. "

But the numbers don't say a FUCKING THING. The "x point x" and percent scale are the dumbest ever - what is the difference between 8.6 and 8.7 or 75 and 76? I know, it's marketing. But you can paste a GOTY or some Editor's Choice from a piece of shit website/publication and I kinda think people buy that more. "Dude, Rogue Warrior got, like, the video game Oscar! Must have, biatch!" "

" Both are pointless... "

" @Ghostiet said:

" @Dalai said:

" I would think developers look to Metacritic more than the many GOTY awards because of pure numbers. "

But the numbers don't say a FUCKING THING. The "x point x" and percent scale are the dumbest ever - what is the difference between 8.6 and 8.7 or 75 and 76? I know, it's marketing. But you can paste a GOTY or some Editor's Choice from a piece of shit website/publication and I kinda think people buy that more. "Dude, Rogue Warrior got, like, the video game Oscar! Must have, biatch!" "

 Sure they do. There isn't any real difference between a 71 and a 72, but the consumer can surely understand that the professional critics view a 90 more favorably than they do a 60. That's why things like metacritic are useful. I glance at it all the time; I really don't understand the hate for it. I mean, I understand that there are issues with converting scoring systems. The five star system doesn't really apply to a 100 point scale for instance, but what can they do when there is no real standard? "

Speaking as a developer, sure, I would like games I worked on to be praised. Everybody likes to see their work recognized, be it metacritic or GOTY or whatever. But usually, it's publishers who really give critical importance to that, due to marketing and sales possibilities.

I think the smart developer looks at what professional critics choose as their game of the year for year X and try to assimilate some properties of said game into upcoming title Y. The brilliant developer looks at those games and says, "No, this is what you really want."
 
EDIT: To clarify my point, yes, I think game of the year awards are important and only silly bugger development houses turn a blind eye to them.

The reason in my opinion is that of all the good games that are released within a year , only a handful make it to the top of GOTY list ,however that does not undermine the quality of the games that do not . 

I think GOTY is very important.  Is this purely anecdotal or did you read a developer interview somewhere in which they mentioned the subject?

Sadly metacritc is considered as objective and mathematical as it gets. But really there are a thousand threads similar to this that end the same.

" Sadly metacritc is considered as objective and mathematical as it gets. But really there are a thousand threads similar to this that end the same. "

" @Claude: I think they do know it, but they rely on folks who do not know it. The folks who don't spend a couple hours a day on videogame culture websites, who take the concept of metacritic at face value.  Also is it the developers who focus on metacritic over GOTY or is it publishers? The devs just wanna get paid for making fun games, the pubs wanna make money of the public opinion regardless of product integrity. The devs do what the pubs ask of them.  Average consumers see GOTY as some random outlets opinion and metacritic as mathematically aggregated fact, no matter how un-true that actually is. "