Metacritic вредит амбициозным играм, считает Рафаэль Колантонио

The Metacritic ecosystem encourages devs to make safe boring games.
As long as a game is polished at launch, you’re guaranteed a 80%, no matter how boring the game might be.
Meanwhile Stalker2 gets a 73 because it’s a bit rough on the edges at launch.
Unfair, misleading..

What weird thing to complain about. Yes a game that works is going to have a better score, while one that doesn’t, a lesser score

A bad game with no bug has better score than a great game with bugs. Makes sense to you? It means the essence of the game is not taken into consideration, it means that 3 months later, when the great game is patched, it still has shit score. Makes sense to you?

I don't know about Stalker 2 specific case, but all Games should be poliched at lunch. Patching a Game after lunch should be the exception not the norm

If so, you would never have some amazing ambitious games like Skyrim see the day, because they will never get the same polish on day one as a sequel of a very controlled linear game. They take risks by nature, to give you those incredible experiences. Don’t blame the devs

So let me understand if you go to buy something and it works badly then what review would you leave?

if I can tell it’s an amazing game under the bugs, I wait until it’s patched to play it. Of course, if you want to punish your favorite dev for trying, go ahead, give them shit scores, then don’t complain there’s no sequel to the game you end up loving, because it’s too late

Metacritic system unfairly encourages developers to release products that are actually finished ☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️

That’s not what I said. It encourage devs to play it safe by making easy games that are easier to polish. As soon as you offer games with tons of possibilities, you open yourself to a harder game to polish at launch