According to review aggregation site Metacritic, the top twenty games of the past ten years are...well, pretty damn surprising. Games like GTAIV, Halo and Super Mario Galaxy are up there, as you'd expect. But some of the others, including the top-rated game of the decade, are coming straight out of left field.

Here they are, courtesy of MCV, with only the highest-ranking score of a multiplatform game included.

1. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 – 98 (Activision)
2. Grand Theft Auto IV – 98 (Rockstar)
3. Perfect Dark – 97 (Nintendo)
4. NFL 2K1 – 97 (Sega)
5. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 – 97 (Activision)
6. Halo – 97 (Microsoft)
7. Metroid Prime – 97 (Nintendo)
8. Grand Theft Auto III – 97 (Rockstar)
9. Super Mario Galaxy – 97 (Nintendo)
10. Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty – 96 (Konami)
11. Half-Life 2 – 96 (Valve)
12. The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker – 96 (Nintendo)
13. Resident Evil 4 – 96 (Capcom)
14. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess – 96 (Nintendo)
15. BioShock – 96 (2K Games)
16. The Orange Box – 96 (Valve)
17. Out of the Park Baseball 2007 – 96 (Sports Interactive)
18. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves – 96 (Sony)
19. Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn – 95 (Interplay)
20. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past [GBA] – 95 (Nintendo)

Wow. I mean, I liked the second Tony Hawk game. It was a blast. But better than Half-Life 2? Better than Halo? That's questionable.

Same for NFL2K1. Yeah, it was a pioneering sports title, but an aggregate score of 97? I think some review outlets were being a little generous around the turn of the millennium.

Top 20 Games of the Decade [MCV]

The EA chart was shown at an investor's conference, designed to appeal to people who EA hopes will think positively of the company's stock, which is labeled as ERTS. So they show off unusual stats, as you can see above, such as the number of games delayed or not delayed. That sends the message that: You can trust our company to deliver on its promises when we say we will.

That's sort of interesting, but how about this idea that EA puts out the most good games? The chart you see above was created by EA and pulls from Metacritic, the aggregator site that pulls review scores mostly from gaming outlets that publish review scores (i.e not Kotaku). EA had gone into the site and counted up the games released between January 1 and November 30, 2009 that scored an 80 average or more. The evidence points to EA not only improving quality year over year — I haven't met a gamer who would deny that — and now leading in quality — which is more controversial.

Shall we check that?

The Beatles: Rock Band (92)
Dragon Age: Origins (91)
FIFA 10 (91)
Left 4 Dead 2 (90)
Burnout Paradise: The Ultimate Box (89)
Skate 2 (89)
NHL 10 (88)
Tiger Woods PGA Tour 10 (88)
Fight Night Round 4 (87)
Boom Blox Bash Party (86)
The Sims 3 (86)
Madden NFL 10 (85)
Tetris (85)
Battlefield 1943 (84)
Need for Speed Shift (84)
Brutal Legend (83)
NCAA Football 10 (83)
Dead Space Extraction (82)
Henry Hatsworth and the Puzzling Adventure (82)
Mirror's Edge PC (81)
The Sims 3 World Adventures (81)
EA Sports Active (81)
EA Sports More Active Workouts (81)
Left 4 Dead Crash Course (80)
NBA Live 10 (81)

I can see why EA didn't count some of the above 25 in its chart. In fact, I can get to their 19 easily. Let's knock out six listings: 1) Mirror's Edge PC, because it's a port of a 2008 game 2) Burnout Paradise Ultimate Box (compilation of an '08 game), 3) The Sims 3 World Adventures and 4) EA Sports More Active Workouts (which both expand and somewhat require ownership of their earlier edition or edition's peripherals), 5) Left 4 Dead Crash Course DLC and... Well, 6) could go one of two ways. We could not count Rock Band, which EA distributes but doesn't publish, or we could not count the PSP Minis release of Tetris.

This is a hefty amount of 80+ games. If we average the full 25, we get this: EA's average 80+ metascore is 85.20. Let's not count six games. We'll include Rock Band but not Tetris. Then we get 85.95. It goes down only to 85.58 if I use Tetris and not Rock Band.

[UPDATE: I originally used the 360 Dragon Age metascore of 86 but have since updated the math above using its PC score of 91. Seemed only fair given PC was its lead platform. I've gone through this post and updated all listings to reflect the highest score given to any PC or console version of these games.]

Let's see if EA counted its competitors correctly.

Modern Warfare 2 (94)
Guitar Hero 5 (89)
Guitar Hero: Metallica (86)
DJ Hero (87)

A little math shows that: Activsion's average 80+ metascore is 89. Better than EA's, but it's only four games, and really, if you want to do a fair comparison of publisher quality, you'd have to do an average of all their games. Also notable is that there was a wide disparity between some versions. I used the highest Guitar Hero score, which was an 89 on the Wii. The game averaged an 85 on the Xbox 360.

Assassin's Creed II (92)
Might and Magic Clash of Heroes (86 *Game was released in December)
Dawn of Discovery (82)

More math: Ubisoft's average 80+ metascore is 86.67 with Might and Magic. It is another publisher with just one 90+ game.

Dawn of War II (85)
Red Faction Guerilla (85)
UFC Undisputed (84)
WWE Smackdown Vs. Raw 2010 (82)
Rocket Riot (80)

Result: THQ's average 80+ metascore is 83.2. They had no 90+ games.

GTA Chinatown Wars (93)
GTA IV: The Lost and Damned (90)
GTA IV: The Ballad of Gay Tony (89)
Borderlands (84)
NBA 2K10 (83)
Beaterator (80)
The Bigs 2 (80)

I do Take Two no favors for the average here by including The Bigs 2, but I did just make them look better by counting it in the overall tally, right? Anyway, Take Two's average 80+ metascore is 85.57. And look! They have two games with a 90 or above.

Metroid Prime Trilogy (91)
Mario and Luigi Bowser's Inside Story (90)
The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks (87)
New Super Mario Bros. Wii (87)
Punch-Out (86)
New Play Control Pikmin (84)
Professor Layton and the Diabolical Box (84)
Art Style Digidrive (83)
Art Style Pictobits (83)
Rhythm Heaven (83)
Pokemon Platinum (83)
Mario Vs. Donkey Kong: Minis March Again (82)
Fire Emblem Shadow Dragon (81)
Art Style Box Life (80)
Wii Sports Resort (80)
Wii Fit Plus (80)

You could load up this one with caveats, noting that the Metroid and Pikmin games aren't new, but let's include them. Nintendo's average 80+ metascore is 84 even. Credit them with a pair of games at 90 or above.

Uncharted 2 (96)
God of War Collection (92)
Killzone 2 (91)
MLB 09 The Show (90)
Wipeout HD Fury (89)
LittleBigPlanet PSP(88)
PixelJunk Shooter (87 *Game released in December)
Flower (87)
PixelJunk Monsters Deluxe (86)
Ratchet and Clank Future: A Crack in Time (86)
infamous (85)
Patapon 2 (81)
Resistance Retribution (81)
Buzz! Quiz World (80)
Zen Pinball (80)

Let me average that up for you. Sony's average 80+ metascore is 86.6. Not shabby at all. Plus, the company can boast four 90+ games, albeit one of them a compilation of PS2 hits.

Forza Motorsport 3 (92)
Shadow Complex (88)
Trials HD (86)
Splosion Man (84)
Halo 3 ODST (83)
Halo Wars (82)

Let's crunch that. Microsoft's 80+ metascore average is 85.83.

EA didn't tally the top scorers for Capcom, Sega and Warner Brothers. All had a batch of stellar games, so I figured I'd do the work.

Street Fighter IV (93)
Resident Evil 5 (85)
Marvel Vs Capcom 2 (82)
Monster Hunter Fredom Unite (81)

Capcom's average 80+ metascore is 85.25.

Empire Total War (90)
Football Manager 2010 (88)
MadWorld (81)

Sega's average 80+ metascore is 86.3

Batman Arkham Asylum (92)
Scribblenauts (80)

Warner's average 80+ metascore is 86. They've got a 90+ as well.'

It's no surprise that EA's chart accurately showed that the publisher had the most well-reviewed games, though, thanks to Kotaku, you can now see what those games were. This breakdown shows a couple of other things:

1) While EA had the most games that received 80+ scores, its average score for such titles settled between its two most prolific game-publishing competitors. It beat Nintendo but was beaten by Sony.

2) It's clear that no matter how many well-reviewed games a publisher has, getting an 80-89 score is far easier than getting a 90+. That seems to be the big equalizer among these top publishers. No one makes lots of those and few make more than a couple.

So which company made the most good video games in 2009? Probably the one you like the most. But if you want to try using numbers to back it up in 2009, I think you have to go with EA for quantity or Sony for 90+ excellence and a higher average score from its 80+ titles.

At least not when it comes to Wii games. The EA Sports' label president tells Gamasutra that the company is less focused on Metacritic averages for Wii software than it is for more general consumer reviews. He points to Amazon.com user reviews and more mainstream media outlets—as well as "mommy bloggers"—as more valuable measuring sticks.

On the topic of EA Sports own EA Sports Active, Moore says that sites like our own aren't necessarily what the publisher is targeting, it's Amazon. (Currently, EA Sports Active is averaging four-and-a-half stars out of five at Amazon.com based on over 200 user reviews. That's the same score Nintendo's own Wii Fit currently holds.)

"We're not going to Kotaku or Operation Sports on this one, we're going to Amazon," Moore tells Gamasutra. "The thing is with the Wii, it seems to be for the gaming sites, it's the last platform they review."

Admittedly, we have yet to review EA Sports Active. But that's only because we just got the game last week, while the majority of us were at E3. We're also not going to factor into the Metacritic average, as we don't provide them with review scores.

But we'll get to it, Peter. We'll definitely get to it.

EA Sports' Moore: Metacritic Less Relevant To Wii Game Sales [Gamasutra]

First, there would be no alphabetical or numerical review scores. Second, reviews would be focused on delivering the most critical information in the most efficient way possible. Third, they should be fun to read and hopefully foster conversation about a game's positives and negatives.

We decided to exclude a final score to ensure that Kotaku reviews would not contribute to the average rating at sites that collate and aggregate numerical scores, scores that do not follow a universal grading scale. Our hope was that we could avoid discussions that fruitlessly debate whether a "10" was, indeed, perfect and if one exclusive was better than another exclusive simply based on a number. Boiling down pages of analysis to a single grade or score or number of pumpkins doesn't help readers, it hurts them, reducing the process of critiquing what is often a living document into black and white terms, when there is often a world of gray left untouched.

Our hope is that by laying out the analytical process, by exposing what we feel was good and bad about that game without weighting either, we give you the resources to form your own educated opinion.

We hope this explains how and why we designed this system. We encourage you to add your comments, questions and suggestions in the comments after reading through the more detailed explanation on the key aspects of our reviews on the jump.

Our Reviews Are Designed To Be Concise And Easy To Read

We're not fans of long-winded reviews, ones that read more like the author is getting paid by the word and span seven pages. We've tailored our reviews to be as to the point as possible while giving the reader the relevant information about our experience with a title.

Reviews are divided into four parts: An introduction to get the reader up to speed on the game or series, a list of things we liked under "Loved," a list of things we didn't like under "Hated," then two paragraphs summing up whether we think the good outweighs the bad or vice versa. We then wrap up with some basic facts and figures about the game. Aspects of a game that we "Loved" or "Hated" are not weighed equally and a score should not be inferred because of the number of each. Pointing out what we loved and hated about a game we hope will highlight potential deal breakers, because what matters to one gamer may not matter to another.

Reviews will address both technical and artistic aspects of a game, as games can be more (or less) than the sum of their parts. We feel that due to the nature of the medium, it's important to discuss a game's artistic style as well as its technical capabilities.

Our Reviews Don't Use Numerical Scores

We like arguing about to-the-decimal-point scoring discrepancies for games we haven't played then complaining about them on internet message boards as much as the next guy, but concluding that "Basically, Game X is better than Game Y" because of an arbitrary scoring scheme doesn't benefit the reader. We'd prefer you read our review instead of just skipping to the score and forming an opinion based on a number, a number that doesn't represent a reviewer's assessment. There are plenty of resources for one to judge a game worthy of purchase and play by numbers, stars and letter grades, we're just choosing not to be one of them.

We're Transparent About What We Played

When reviewing a game, our goal is to at least complete a game's single-player mode, whether that's a story-driven campaign or a season in Madden or a series of license tests in Gran Turismo. However, in some cases beating a game is simply not possible, as is the case with open ended, massively multiplayer online RPGs. If we don't "finish" the game or access a particular multiplayer mode, we'll tell you. We'll also divulge how much of the game's multiplayer and bonus modes we played, if applicable and we'll tell you which system(s) we played it on. If there are questions about the experience, we urge you to ask your question in the comments or e-mail us directly.

Our Reviews Will Be Timely And Accurate

We do our best to get reviews up by the day the game ships to stores in North America. Occasionally, when a title is released in another region before its North American street date, we'll review the PAL or Japanese version. Our goal is have a review up no later than a week after its release, but we're not always given the courtesy of early review copies and often take extra time to play online portions post-release to get a better handle on how something will play in the real world. We'll take extra time with games that feature a significant online component to get a more accurate perspective of the experience.

Brian Crecente contributed to this article.

Market research firm EEDAR are on-hand to help you find out. Having tracked every Xbox 360 game's score in Metacritic, they've found that 13% of Xbox 360 games average a review score of 85 or higher. That's 48 games. Leaving 49% of games scoring between 66-84%, and 38% of games scoring 65 or lower.

So odds are good she'll get you a game that's...well, if not Crackdown, then at least halfway decent.

Games At-a-Glance: Xbox 360 Quality [Edge]

In other words, their games are consistently good, bad, mediocre, just as long as they are consistent.

While on the one had you might say that's not very worthwhile information for gamers, it does provide you insight into which publishers you can expect to not surprise you when it comes to quality of games.

For instance, Rockstar games is the most consistent, with 23 titles, most in the well-received range. While Ubisoft is the least consistent with 237 games spread across the board. Granted, 75 of their titles received an "F" and only 4 an "A".

The report offers interesting insight into, perhaps, how diligent a company is about their process of killing off and bolstering game ideas.

Before jumping to too many conclusions, you should keep in mind that this report was commissioned by an unnamed entity for public disclosure. It also would help if you took a look at the methodology used.

In a nutshell, Sweezey and crew looked at games for the PC, PS3, Xbox360, PSP, Wii, and the DS that came out from 2000 to 2008 and had a Metacritic score available based on at least four reviews.

Most / Least Consistent Publishers? [David Perry]

"We're a creative business, and how do you put objectivity into it? But at the end of the day publishers will always want to do that, particularly if you're spending $20 million — you have to try and find that objectivity, and it's going to come from how much it costs, when it's coming out, and how good the game is," Hayes told GamesIndustry.biz.

Further, "If you're going for a high-end PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360 game and you want to break out in the genre, or something like that, you have to target that quality - because otherwise you don't have a hope in hell," Hayes said. "There's too much evidence that shows games which score below a certain level in certain genres are not going to cut through."

Hayes said that "we won't say to every developer we work with that there's a target in there." Which sounds like, for some developers, there is. And the size of the deal seems to be a factor in how much a Metacritic score means to the project.

"Where we're spending a lot of money, and the score is essential to the success of the product, absolutely I think there's a value in it," Hayes said, adding "I don't think it's unreasonable for publishers spending that much money to have certain expectations of quality levels. But to demand it on absolutely everything wouldn't be right at all."

Metacritic Helps Business Objectivity says Hayes [GamesIndustry.Biz via play.tm]

The list was created by looking at average review scores and includes a couple Grand Theft Auto IV mentions, Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Fallout 3, among others.

DS
1. Chrono Trigger
2. The World Ends With You
3. Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia
4. Advance Wars: Days of Ruin
5. Professor Layton and the Curious Village

Dud
Homie Rollerz

PC
1. Fallout 3
2. Galactic Civilizations II: Twilight of the Arnor
3. World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King
4. Grand Theft Auto IV
5. World of Goo

Dud
Beauty Factory

PS2
1. Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4
2. Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3 FES
3. MLB 08: The Show
4. Pro Evolution Soccer 2008
5. FIFA Soccer 09

Dud
Women's Volleyball Championship

PS3
1. Grand Theft Auto IV
2. LittleBigPlanet
3. Bioshock
4. Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
5. Rock Band 2

Dud
Vampire Rain: Altered Species

PSP
1. God of War: Chains of Olympus
2. Patapon
3. LocoRoco 2
4. FIFA Soccer 09
5. Space Invaders Extreme

Dud
King of Clubs

Wii
1. Super Smash Bros. Brawl
2. World of Goo
3. MaBoShi: The Three Shape Arcade
4. Okami
5. Tetris Party

Dud
SPOGS Racing

Xbox 360
1. Grand Theft Auto IV
2. Gears of War 2
3. Fallout 3
4. Braid
5. Rock Band 2

Dud
Jumper

Hit up the site to read why these games were so good... and so bad.

Best of 2008 [Metacritic, thanks Alan]

Courtesy of MTV (who did the original legwork), then, here is the list of 2008's ten (well...fifteen, since it includes ties) best video games, as judged by a collection of games writers then mediated by the laws of mathematics.

1. Grand Theft Auto IV (98 — 360, 98 — PS3)
2. LittleBigPlanet (95 — PS3)
3. Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots (94 — PS3)
4. BioShock (94 — PS3) and Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4 (94 — PS2)
5. Super Smash Bros. Brawl (93 — Wii) and Gears of War 2 (93 — 360)
6. Chrono Trigger (93 — DS) and Braid (93 — 360)
7. World of Goo (94 — Wii, 91 — PC / AVERAGE: 92.5)
8. Fallout 3 (93 — 360, 92 — PS3, 92 — PC / AVERAGE: 92) and Galactic Civilizations II: Twilight of the Armor (92 — PC)
9. Rock Band 2 (92 — 360, 91 — PS3 / AVERAGE: 91.5)
10. God of War: Chains of Olympus (91 — PSP) and World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King (91 — PC)

Persona 4? World of Goo? Chains of Olympus? No complaining from anyone about that list, OK?

As a bonus, Metacritic is also obviously able to tell us what 2008's worst games were in the eyes of the critics.

1. SPOGS Racing (18 — Wii) and Pong Toss: Frat Party Games (18 — Wii)
2. Beauty Factory (22 — PC)
3. Homie Rollerz (23 — DS)
4. Jumper: Griffin’s Story (28 — Wii) and Racing Team Manager (28 — PC)
5. Jumper: Griffin’s Story (29 — 360) and Game Party 2 (29 — Wii), Beat’n Groovy (29 — 360)
6. George and the Jungle and the Search for the Secret (30 — PS2), Woman’s Volleyball Championship (30 — PS2), Vampire Rain: Altered Species (30 — PS3), Ford Racing Off Road (30 — Wii) and Crazy Mouse (30 — 360),
7. Toy Shop (31 — DS) and Rapala Fishing Freanzy 2009 (31 — PS2)
8. Falling Stars (32 — PS2), Best of Tests DS (32 — PS2), Iron Man (32 — PC) and Code of Honor 2: Conspiracy Island (32 — PC)
9. Target: Terror (33 — Wii) and The Incredible Hulk (33 — PC)
10. Jackass: The Game (34 — PC) and King of Clubs (34 — Wii)

Glad Vampire Rain made the cut. There's two hours of my life I'll never get back thanks to that pile of shit.

The Top 10 Best Games Of 2008, According To Metacritic [MTV]
The Top 10 Worst Games Of 2008, According To Metacritic [MTV]

MTV Multiplayer took a look and found that, while no one beat EA, Sony was close behind with 15 grabbing 80 or better, an out-and-out wallop of Nintendo (six games) Ubisoft and Activision (5) and Microsoft (4) — interesting considering how Nintendo and Activision cleaned up in sales this year.

It would be good to know what percentage this represents of a publisher's total releases. EA, of course, had the panned Mirror's Edge and Need for Speed:Underground, as well as average moneymakers coming out of its sports division. But an average of these scores also shows EA leading, with 89.52, followed by Activision (86.78), Microsoft (86.50), Nintendo (84.50), Sony (84.13) and Ubisoft (82.93).

2008 Market Winners Nintendo and Activision Crushed In Quality By EA and Sony, According To Metacritic [MTV Multiplayer]

Rock Band 2 currently has the best score of the bunch, a group harvested by MTV Multiplayer so you (and we) don't have to. You'll find the expected stuff — Madden NFL 09, Dead Space, Spore — but you won't find one of Electronic Arts' biggest risks. No, Mirror's Edge didn't make the cut, and just barely. That score of 50 from BigPond GameArena probably had something to do with it.

We hope you've learned a valuable lesson about striving for quality and new IP, EA. Stop trying to showboat with all your "effort" and "dedication" to "improvement." We don't like yer kind!

These Are The 17 EA Games That Critics Really Liked In 2008, With One Glaring Omission [MTV Multiplayer]

“That’s right. We’re trying to manage the review scores at the request of Eidos.”

When asked why, the spokesperson said: “Just that we’re trying to get the Metacritic rating to be high, and the brand manager in the US that’s handling all of Tomb Raider has asked that we just manage the scores before the game is out, really, just to ensure that we don’t put people off buying the game, basically.”

Well that certainly makes sense. We wouldn't want low review scores putting people off.

What the holy hell? A request like this is not only insulting, it's downright unethical. Basically they are asking review sites to withhold information from the public in order to fool them into buying a game with an artificially inflated Metacritic score...and they are doing it without batting an eyelid, as if this were just everyday business.

As Videogaming247 writes, British site Eurogamer has already gone live with their 7 out of 10 review, which the representative said had caused "problems", and the Official Xbox Magazine in the UK has also posted a 7.0. Checking Metacritic now, I can see IGN and 1UP with scores of 75, with GamePro adding to the 70 set, for a combined average of 78, which is still considered generally favorable.

In this day and age, where everything eventually winds up on the internet, it really makes you wonder how they figured they could get away with something like this without being ratted out by the more ethical gaming press. Extremely bad form, Eidos.

We've contacted an Eidos to see if the same reviewing rules apply in the US.

UK Tomb Raider: Underworld reviews under 8/10 silenced until Monday [Videogaming247]

UPDATE: Videogaming247 has posted a follow up to the original story, having received the following statement from Simon Byron, one of the directors of the PR firm Barrington Harvey:

Barrington Harvey is not in the position of telling reviewers what they can and cannot say. We love Tomb Raider and believe it merits a score of at least 8/10, but if someone disagrees that’s entirely their prerogative. No problem at all. Seriously: no problem.

Our original NDA stated that in order to receive an advance copy of the game, reviewers agreed not to post reviews ahead of 5:00pm, Wednesday 19th November 2008. Nothing else. No further obligations whatsoever.

As you can clearly see from the scores posted so far, Barrington Harvey has no issue with scores of below eight out of 10 being posted online. The Eurogamer review in questions caused “problems” in so much as it originally contained a couple of minor factual inaccuracies which, to its credit, the site has quickly rectified and addressed (without, quite rightly, changing the context of the review).

Any site, be it Gamespot or whoever, is entirely within their rights to post whatever score they want and no-one is under any sort of obligation to delay any review.

As an ex-journalist myself, I firmly believe in editorial integrity and the right to express an individual opinion. As an agency, we never - ever - make demands of the press in terms of awarding scores; at the end of the day, they are free to score as they wish.

Barrington Harvey has been working hard to ensure the launch scores of Tomb Raider Underworld are in line with our internal review predictions over the launch weekend - but to suggest that we can in some way “silence” reviews of the game is slightly overstating our influence.

If there is one thing PR firms know, it's damage control.

Eidos UK PR firm: We are “not in the position of telling reviewers what they can and cannot say” [VG247]

In a note at the foot of the Gears of War 2 page, games editor Marc Doyle writes:

My advice for our faithful users is to focus your attention on the Metascore for this game and not the thousands of user votes, most of which have been submitted before said users have played the game. This is a gaming community, and if people want to stuff the ballot box, there's not much I can do at this point. When we upgrade the registration requirements for participation on the site in the near future, this type of thing won't happen. We'll post the full legitimate user reviews upon the game's release. As always, thanks for using the site.

In terms of just what they'll be doing in terms of upgrading, Doyle tells 1UP that, as it stands, all a user needs to provide is an email address and they're able to comment. In the near future, commenting will "require users to enter more information than just an e-mail address in order to get an account and vote on MetaCritic", and users won't be able to submit reviews until after a game hits store shelves.

Gears of War 2 [MetaCritic, via 1UP]

This latter conflict is currently raging between the HTML tags of review aggregating site Metacritic. Trouble started when LittleBigPlanet seemed to have an unusually low user rating - currently at 6.4, compared to 95% approval by 'real' critics.

It soon became apparent that Xbox fanboys had been posting deliberately low user ratings to spite the PS3-touting infidels. The PS3 nation was quick to respond with an equally daft Gears of War 2 review bomb that has left the Xbox shooter with an embarrassing score of 2.8 at time of posting.

UN Peacekeepers are on standby.

PS3 Fanboys Strike Back: [Ripten]

Janco Partners analyst Mike Hickey said that going toe-to-toe with GTA IV on content is "an unusually pompous position... considering GTA IV is estimated to be the highest grossing 1st week entertainment release of all time."

Hickey also nodded to GTA IV's Metacritic-leading score, and maintained his "conservative" estimate for Saints Row 2 sales, "in light of mediocre game previews and a delayed release in-part from quality concerns."

In general, it seems a bit of a risky strategy for any title to compare itself, even jokingly, to a sales record-smasher like GTA IV. When I spoke to THQ during their preview event, though, a rep told me the aim was to show what was different about Saints Row, not necessarily to make superiority claims.

Hickey: Saint's Row 2 'Pompous' To Attack GTA IV [Gamasutra]

Easy to say from the outside looking in, but independent game developer Matthew of the Magical Wasteland blog shared his insider experience with an unidentified major publisher to explain that it's not always so simple, even when executives "talk the talk" about quality control.

Matthew cited the institution of bonuses for developers based on Metacritic scores, similar to the practice of hinging developer royalties on good scores that MTV Multiplayer's Stephen Totilo recently investigated.

Said Matthew:

Armed with the knowledge that higher review scores meant more money for them, game producers were thus encouraged to identify the elements that reviewers seemed to most notice and most like – detailed graphics, scripted set piece battles, “robust” online multiplayer, “player choice,” and more, more of everything. Like a food company performing a taste test to find out that people basically like the saltiest, greasiest variation of anything and adjusting its product lineup accordingly, the big publishers struggled to stuff as much of those key elements as possible into every game they funded.

The result, said Matthew, was that development became rushed and disjointed, all in the pursuit of the mighty Metacritic review score.

Multiplayer modes were suddenly tacked on late in development. More missions and weapons were added to bulk up their offering – to be created by outsource partners. Level-based games suddenly turned into open-world games.

Before you cry in despair, keep in mind that all these people wanted in the end was the best game possible – or, more precisely, the best-reviewed game possible.

Matthew's entire story is well worth a read, even with the (logical) absence of his career specifics. I find it ironic that the games press, many of whom are indirectly responsible for those scores, so rarely gets opportunities like these to look inside the developers' experience.

You Can’t Fake Quality, But That Never Stops Them from Trying [Magical Wasteland]

Totilo talks to some pretty big names about the practice, including GameSpot's former employee Jeff Gerstmann, who explains why the practice is so disturbing.

I’ve gotten e-mails from developers over the years who have said, ‘I don’t think you realize what you’re doing to me with this review’ because my review knocked them out of the range of some bonus that they were up for...

It's really a ridiculous practice that almost always works in the publisher's favor. Luckily it isn't as widespread as it once was, but it does give you interesting insight into why some developers will defend their games as if their lives depended on it. Sometimes they might.

Low Metacritic Scores Cause Game Publishers To Withhold Developer Royalties [MTV Multiplayer]

According to Whitten, any title that is six months old, with an average Metacritic score below 65 and a demo-to-full conversion ratio below 6%, will be pulled from the service. Concerned parties will be notified three months in advance if a title is going to be pulled.

That means titles like Cyberball 2072 and Arkadian Warriors may be on their way out, depending on when Microsoft plans to start taking out the trash. We're a bit confused as to why MS would choose to pull the titles outright instead of implementing other methods for showcasing more well received titles and we have little insight into conversion ratios, but Whitten hopes that "Overall I think you will find this will focus the catalogue more on larger, more immersive games and make it much easier to find the games you are looking for."

The Xbox Live GM also reveals that we won't see a Spring dashboard update like we did last year, but that Microsoft still has plans for new features. One of those is a new DRM tool "that will allow you to better consolidate your licenses for downloaded content to a single Xbox and allow you the freedom to be able to play your content both online and offline" according to Whitten.

Maybe that list of rumored updates we heard about earlier this month won't be coming for a long time (if ever).

MS To Delist XBLA Titles [Next-Gen]

[Thanks, Cadaverine]