You know there’s something wrong with video game journalism when…

... a 75%+ Metacritic rating becomes responsible for a game company's stock taking a dip.

THQ has been banking a lot of money on Homefront lately, their own offering for the hordes of gamers addicted to modern military shooting games from EA and Activision. Ofcourse, once you build up hype, you build expectations. And once you fail to meet expectations, you get a bad rep no matter how good your game is otherwise.That's exactly what happened to Homefront. [Techspotlight.net]

[DualConsoleOwner]

Low Rating=Less Sales
Less Sales= Less Revenue

Less Revenue= Less Profit or even Loss.

Low Profit or Loss= Lower stock price.

duhhh

[Titanz]

It sold about, $20 mil so far.

[NukaCola]

Wii play was a $10 game that came with a controller though.

[JackBNimble]

75 on the metacritic is about %15 more then i would have given the game.

How about THQ make a quality game and maybe they might make some money. Homefront is mediocre to begin with so what do they expect.

Ya , I bought the game ... sadly!

oops ... I clicked reply on the wrong name... to much whisky I guess. Anyway my point is made.

[chainer3000]

Wii play shouldn't be on the sales board for games due to the fact that it is the only way to get the controller.

[HolyOrangeCows]

"You know there’s something wrong with video game journalism when…
... a 75%+ Metacritic rating becomes responsible for a game company's stock taking a dip"

In today's greatly inflated reviewing market, games get 8s easily for little more than being functional. To get a 75 is actually below average for a big budget game these days.

[Inside_out]

.
The thing is the game is just releasing NOW and the stock dropped 20 percent which is HUGE. THQ is notoriously cheap so you get what you pay for with them. A 5 hour campaign became a lighting rod of sorts for whiners while a game like Mag didn't even have a single player.

The problem is the game has become a money pit for THQ suffering delays and in the end the graphics, to me at least looks like a launch title.

Everybody wants COD numbers BUT they forget how much money and talent Activision has and that's why that game has sold so well. I haven't played Homefront yet ( rental ) but the game play videos are brutally ugly to say the least. Telling everyone, including your share holders your game needs to sell 2 million just to break even is just plain dumb. Somebody is going to get fired for this.

BTW...this guy saying reviewers should have the balls to put out lower scores is pathetic. reviewers, for the most part are bought and paid for with free games, systems...etc. If you want to see if a game is worthy, rent it and see or your self.

[Rearden]

Well, the game just doesn't meet the expectations and hype set by THQ. What do you expect?

THQ ran a big marketing campaign, so naturally gamers and THQ's share holders expected the game to be great. Turns out Homefront is just mediocre.

[DelbertGrady]

People who've played it seem to think that the multiplayer is awesome. It had lots of pre-orders and I'm sure there's many out there who are getting sick and tired of COD and want something else. I hope at least. I need someone to play with :)

[Johandevries]

Thumbs up for your positive comments

[TheDeadMetalhead]

The thing that gets me.

Everybody stopped paying attention to movie critics a long time ago.
Everybody stopped paying attention to music critics a long time ago.
Everybody stopped paying attention to TV critics a long time ago.

So why does everybody still care so much about video game reviews?

[radphil]

Because the mass public is sheepish.

They've turned gaming into a social status thing now. If you see it a lot on TV and/or hear people talking about it, then it MUST be good apparently. If it has high ratings, not questioning the content written, then it MUST be good.

It's to the point where companies have to advertise famous names now to market things.

[badz149]

don't cost as much as games! $60 vs $10(movies) vs $5(iTune music?) I hope you get my point

[Berserker__1124]

Good point but I don't have to spend 60+ dollars on a movie or cd dude

I want my money be worth spending. Just like you ask questions before you buy a car. You jus don't wanna get burned.

[kaveti6616]

Taking advantage of reviews does not make one sheepish.

I could just as easily say that someone who doesn't listen to reviews ever is a hardheaded, stubborn, jackass.

Reviews are good to follow especially if you've found a critic who has consistently shared the same views as you on the medium and has the same interests.

There have been times where I have not listened to reviews and I have ended up regretting it with no one to blame but myself because when so many people were saying that something sucked, I decided to not listen.

And people still pay attention to movie critics and music critics and TV critics.

If you have a very high budget, good for you. Rich people have the luxury of not giving a crap how much money they waste because they have a large supply. People who have a small budget for gaming aren't going to say, "Hey, screw it. I'm gonna pay full price for these games rated 65 and ignore all the games rated 80 to 90."

No doubt some reviewers nitpick and even point out problems in low-profile games while ignoring the same problems in high-profile games, but for the most part, I have almost never been steered wrong by aggregate review scores.

The only exception was Demon's Souls for me.

[TheDeadMetalhead]

What about renting games?

And besides, it's not like the reviews are the only way you can tell if you want a game. You could always look up gameplay videos or ask other people about it (I don't mean reviewers). Or see if the game is even the kind of game you would want to play in the first place.

But most importantly, the game's score doesn't mean you'll definitely enjoy it. I've played 93-rated games that I've hated, and 43-rated games that I loved. That's the whole reason I don't listen to them anymore in the first place. And trust me; If you only buy games that got above a certain score, you're missing out on a lot.

[callahan09]

Well the reason it happened with movie critics was that a lot of people were seeing movies that got crap reviews and they liked them, and they would see movies that got great scores, and didn't like them. So they realized that critics don't fall in line with their opinions. With games, most people just play the games that got the good reviews, and these do tend to be games that people like, so therefore they haven't become disenfranchised with reviewers. If they played some games that got less than good reviews they would probably see that critics ratings aren't gospel and enjoy some of those games. But people just tend to ignore those for some reason. If reviewers started giving great scores to games that people didn't like, THAT is when they would become disenfranchised with reviewers.

[Coffin87]

It's easy:
1. You expect to spend a LOT of time with a video game, compared to a movie you see in the cinema or a music CD you can just lay aside, or a TV program that's crappy - you just switch channels.
2. Video Games are expensive. I don't wanna spend 60+ € on a crappy piece of sh*t game that I hate after 20 minutes.
3. It probably also has to do with the age of the comparatively 'young' medium, but I think those first two are the main reasons.

[radphil]

@kaveti6616

I meant it's more of taking that score at mass value and ignoring the content written into it. The problem being is that those kinds of reviews that don't inhibit money into their views are few and far apart.

[NRG]

That comparison image in the article doesn't prove anything except the video game industry is full of way too many praising reviewers rather than actually being video game critics doing what they're supposed to be doing: criticizing.

Too many butthurt, overly sensitive fanboys for every game and platform. Too many companies paying reviewers for good scores.

[jophus]

I love how most of the people that are saying THQ released an inferior game are the same people that simply read the reviews and haven't played it for themselves.

It's a damn good game, with occasional hokey voice acting, but overall so far it's up there with MW2 for military shooters.

So to put it in terms that people that have no decision making skills of their own and need to read 'journalists' scores rather than playing it - Game is good. It go bang bang and zoom zoom! It have gun and tank like Call of Duty game. I give game 85%. Zoom!

[JackBNimble]

well I disagree with you completely, and yes I own the game , and no I am not as happy with it as you.

I can only blame myself for falling for all the hype and NOT listening to the reviews. I don't know what you see about this game, but online sucks ass and the single player game was over all to quickly.

85%? ...Really?... you must have low expectations.

[jophus]

Well I certainly wasn't saying that nobody would not like the game. Hell, there are people that will play it but have some kind of mental block that will prohibit their enjoyment of it simply because of their loyalty to CoD.
Not saying they're doing it on purpose, etc. It's just the way it is. Same thing with movies, music, anything else that you can like and not like..you're going to carry some hidden loyalty.

Yes, so far I would give the game an 85% and that's without playing multiplayer, and not completing the single campaign yet. I don't feel I have low expectations, but I still feel entitled to my own opinion on the game...as you are, too. It's the people that blind bash it that get me, same with movies and music. I've reviewed movies before (and hate it, which is why I'm not doing it now) and no matter what I piled through the movie to the end credits just to give it a fair shake. So what if I know ZOMBIES GONE WILD was shit within the first two minutes? Who's to say it doesn't improve ...(spoiler: it didn't)?

Boils down to, much like in the early 00's, everyone wanted to be a DJ or a record producer...now everyone wants to be an online journalist.

[jophus]

Also, I'll put it out there that I can be a fairly easy sell. I wasn't very interested in this game for a long time, mainly because it's a new IP and it's a genre I'm only just getting into (the military modern shooter), but once I heard the gun sound effects in a video...that's what sold me.

Some reviewer actually bashed them, saying they were generic and bad. That reviewer has no ears.

[jophus]

And now having completed the single player campaign in around 3-4 hours, I felt compelled to come back here and post this for whoever reads it.

Save your money. Most anti-climactic game I've ever played. It's seriously over without any kind of major battle, or really any kind of knockout third act. It's total bullshit, and fuck this game.

[WitWolfy]

Well it is true, when I see a review saying a game is between 5-6/10 I know its shovelware. Face it 5-6 is the new 4 LOL

[MARKUS_MAX1MUS]

When you go by reviews which is essentially another persons opinion of the game, just publiscised.

I cant say I hold a high opin.....screw it, you eat paint chips for breakfast.

[WitWolfy]

So when a game like Leisure Suit Larry got 3/10 its was the reviewer being too harsh right?? I seriously doubt it, some games deserve the scores they get...

In my perspective im not reviewing the game, but the effort that went into the game.

[jophus]

WitWolfy, who gave LSL a 3/10? That's a sham! They must have been on the developers payroll. Everyone knows that game was easily in the negative zone.

[hellzsupernova]

ahhhh so thats why activsion fly their reviews out to a special retreat and soften them up with free food, controllers, accomodation, flights etc

[SwampCroc]

I'm going to have to say I like the game....

the single-player isn't nothing new to me anyways... I'm sort of desensitized from actual real combat in Iraq...

so yeah, the controversial stuff like shooting parents in front of babies didn't really effect me.

I've gotten like half way through the Campaign... and it's ok... Very similar to Half-Life the way the game progress's but yet at the same time in a strange way it reminded me of Condemned: Criminal Origins... with a sort of grittyness appeal to it.. and the fact there are like random newspapers you collect...

as for the story... personally, Korea invades America... the rest is the rest... do what you gotta go to win... I have absolutely no remorse or feelings for the allies that I'm supposed to be fighting with... The one dude is always in the way... so it's alot of waiting on the AI....

Graphically it doesn't have to be incredible.. Sure, it's maybe a little dated. But it isn't the worst thing ever..

and Multiplayer... I like it from what I've played so far... it seems fast paced... kinda touch and go lag wise.... they are currently adding more servers... the mix of vehicles is cool.. the BP system seems cool.. the layout of the controls I like.. knife kills are satisfying... from what I'm seeing people are wishing they had more guns...

and I have had the game freeze my system 4 times while connected on Multiplayer... 2 times while backing out, 1 time right before a match started and 1 time in the actual game...

I'm on the PS3... but apparently it's happening to alot of people from what I'm seeing on the net... both Xbox and PS3...

so with all of that... I gotta give it a 8 as of right now... I like it... it's something new... it's something kinda different... it feels slighty slack right now, but in a few days I think it should be smooth.

[donnaluke2003]

Gamers are whinny b!tches is the real problem.

[huzzaahh]

Neigh! *Snuffle snuffle*

[MARKUS_MAX1MUS]

These articles contradict the others about their servers apparently being over populated?

what ever happened to that?

Oh and on a side note, if your one of the sheep out there who waits for a 9/10 review score before buying a game.....I pity you.

[RockmanII7]

I wonder how much money some THQ stock costs right about now, I know that it will go up so now would be a great time to buy.

[SwampCroc]

the stock to buy would be Sony.... alot of people have sold their shares because of the earthquake...

and I believe Sony in the next few months will be right back on process... as they are most likely only effected right now by the power outages... but yeah, Sony stock cheap doesn't happen often....

[T3mpr1x]

I'm spending $60 on a product. So why would I choose anything but a surefire quality game? 71, which is the current Metacritic score as of this comment, indicates the game is average. That makes me pretty hesitant to purchase an average game at current prices. If it had launched for say $40 or less then that would be an easier sell. But it didn't, so I'll likely rent.

Movies, on the other hand, are still far cheaper - about $10 or so where I live. It's much less of a gamble so I find it easier to watch something not critically lauded.

[assmonkey]

This game isn't that bad. I actually really like the story and I think the graphics are cool too. This runs on the Unreal engine, right?

[darksied]

People have to realize that the economy is still in terrible shape (natural disasters don't help the situation) and people don't have as much money. You just CAN'T make a game with a budget as big as homefront's, have massive advertising like it did, and then spout out about how it needs over 2m copies sold to break even. And even then the product itself wasn't that GREAT (I'm sure it was good, but nothing in the range of 8-10). This whole issue just adds up to a lot of lost money and layoffs, and that's really sad ... but they have to realize that you need to be smarter with your budget. Great games can be made with smaller budgets and still be successful. The less you spend, as long as the game is good, means you need those many less sales to break even.

[Blues Cowboy]

Getting back to the point of the article rather than discusing Homefront: the way us gamers interpret review scores is RIDICULOUS. Folks, understand that 5/10 DOESN'T mean that a game is bad. And a 6/10 means that a game is probably worth buying by its target audience. Many journalists are also at fault for skewing their scales upwards and not using the bottom end anywhere near enough. Fearing trolly wrath, probably.

If Homefront were getting 3 or 4 out of 10, I'd write it off. But 7.5 is a big score that would have been incredible back in the day.

I haven't played Homefront, but I think that it's high time for us to sort our scores out. 9s and 10s should be incredibly rare, and 4-7 should be the norm.

[Strakken]

I think everybody takes metacritic reviews too damn seriously, how about i make a review site and rate everything extremely low except for games that qualify for game of the year......

[Gamer_Z]

You know what went wrong with Homefront? They tried to take a page from Activision’s playbook by developing a mediocre game with the same gameplay as COD and hyping the shit out of it thinking that it will sell but see the only problem there is that COD was a revolution in the FPS genre when Acti first came out with Modern Warfare 1 now COD doesn’t need to be revolutionary it only sells because of its name. The thing is that if you want a franchise to succeed and sell like crazy like COD you first have to develop something amazing that nobody has ever played making a reputation for the game and therefore establishing yourself and making it a household name, only then can you start making the franchise more mediocre every year and start raping the casuals (sadly). BF3 will be a revolution in the FPS genre you just watch, though hopefully EA won’t do an Activision and start making BF every year and raping us gamers. =/

[lucifon]

Really really irritates me how much of a hit multiple reviews are giving Homefront due to it's pretty average singleplayer campaign. The multiplayer is robust and damn fun, it actually brings new things to the table and is an absolute blast.

Shadowrun is one of my favorite 360 games of all time, yet it's metacritic is 66 due to a pretty non-existent singleplayer. It seems if you make a good singleplayer title with an average mp and it's perfectly fine, yet make a great multiplayer experience with an average campaign and ratings take a hit. Utterly flawed state of many reviews these days.

I just hope the sales have been good for Homefront, with them having to add more servers it looks positive. The game deserves it, and so do the devs. Kaos have created an awesome online shooter, with 32 players and dedicated servers in a world where most big named publishers would rather implement a laggy Peer2Peer multiplayer to save costs.

[DanielRCampbell]

Completely agree. Too many reviewers let the hype dictate how they review a game. Look at GTA4. It is the second highest rated game so far...seriously...While some may say the game was good...I can't imagine many people would say it deserved to be just under Legend of Zelda: OoT

[gypsygib]

Never trust reviews, it's one guy's opinion which is influenced by advertising dollars and the pressure from his editor.

Professional reviewers have to plow through games as fast as possible so often games that are all flash and no substance get good reviews when in depth quality games don't (COD). The former just leave a good first impression but are superficial.

It's sort of like how the brightest loudest TV at the store looks best but really it has not indicated anything about its true picture quality.

I'd say reviewers are right 40% of the time with the majority and probably less than 10% of the time with the individual. Rent or play the demo or just get what your really excited about, pay little mind to reviews, there's so much going on behind the scene that isn't gaming related but affects the score a lot.