Every year, Metacritic tallies up all the review data it collects and publishes a report that summarizes how each publisher did overall for that past year. Naturally, this makes for some interesting reading, as it provides a wider snapshot of how the industry is doing, as well as how each company has been performing year on year. Metacritic just published the results for 2017 and, to the surprise of no one, Nintendo had quite the bumper year.
Overall, Nintendo placed second in the rankings, with an average review score of 78 being just beat out by Bethesda's score of 79.9. Most importantly, Nintendo was the only company that managed to score over 90 with three different games. Here’s what Metacritic said in its summary:
Nintendo once again released more distinct titles than any other publisher, while somehow managing to boost its average Metascore (and overall ranking) above the already admirable figures for the year before. The gaming giant was also the only publisher to achieve a 90+ score for three different titles in 2017. That group includes new Mario Kart and Super Mario installments as well as our 2017 Game of the Year, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. All three of those games were released for Nintendo’s new Switch console—a massive hit that managed to out-sell its predecessor, the Wii U, in less than a year. In fact, Nintendo’s Metascore average for its Switch releases was 80.0, compared to an average of 75.5 for its 3DS games.
For reference, here's a chart of how the publishers did overall:
What do you think? Are you surprised that Bethesda topped the ranks this year? Do you think Nintendo will do even better this year? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
[source metacritic.com]
Comments 61
You can thank 1 2 Switch for second place. Throw that crap out the window and they get first.
Ha no EA at all in the top 10. This is what happens when you make garbage games through garbage decisions time after time.
@Spoony_Tech That and the fact that Bethesda only released like five games last year, two of which were phone games (not hard to get a good review for a phone game) and at least two were re-releases of old game’s that were already reviewed highly.
People still acknowledge Metacritic?
Metacritic scores are biased depending on who rates it. We should stop putting so much stock in to it.
In fact, just stop slapping numbers on to media in general.
Good going Nintendo.
The turnaround they had from 2016 to 2017 was truly amazing. Hopefully they keep it going throughout 2018.
Besides the fact that Metacritic is shady and ultimately pointless, it’s not really a good comparison. Nintendo publishes a lot more games than Bethesda because they aim for numerous different markets that don’t all need huge epic games, so many of them are smaller, less-prestigious affairs. Whereas Bethesda puts out a couple of new games a year and pretty much only ever makes big, epic games.
Ah, who need Metacritic if we have our references about game reception ?
They might think game A was a Stellar but for me it might be different story. It could be better, it could be worse.
@retro_player_22 EA would've ranked, but they were considered a "minor publisher" as they had less than 12 distinct titles last year (that had sufficient number of reviews).
Wasn't there a company called Microsoft? Can't see it on the table. Sad for Sony too, all got nintendominated I guess.
EDIT: I see the point about companies like Microsoft/EA not being major publishers. Somehow that makes it even more pathetic in a way.
Honestly, most of these publishers rarely put out games I'm too excited by these days. Thankfully there have been so many awesome indie games to make up for it.
@Neon_Blues I don't think that it's credible to call Metacritic "biased".
They base their scores off the general critic populace and also have the "user" section. If anything it's the most open and reliable rating system. "Biased" is when something is clearly based on a single opinion and point of view.
I'm surprised that Sega was in the top 3 out of all publishers. The only good Sega games I know are Sonic Mania and Persona 5.
@Neon_Blues
I disagree. Taking an average of all scores, assuming the sample is large, is a good system. It's true that it will be affected by extreme values, but that's just how averages work in general. It's definitely a lot more reliable than any single review score for the average person.
Good to see SEGA there. @TF-Warrior you're forgetting Bayonetta series, Football manager (sells like hotcackes in the uk) Total war series aswell they own. Sega are probably in a better state now then they have been in the past 20 years.
@Neon_Blues this is collections of reviews from reviewers. You would have to fly blind on everything and distrust this site immensely if that’s the case.
It's no surprise to see Nintendo on higher ground. They've always had at least one or two games for me to look forward to every year, even if it/both weren't "good".
I mean for me...
2017 had Super Mario Odyssey and The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild.
2016 had Tokyo Mirage Sessions #FE, Mario Party: Star Rush, Paper Mario: Color Splash, Kirby Planet Robobot, Pokken Tournament, and Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam.
2015 had Super Mario Maker, Yoshi's Woolly World, and Splatoon
2014 had Mario Kart 8, Kirby Triple Deluxe, Mario Golf: World Tour, Super Smash Bros 4, and Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker
2013 had Animal Crossing: New Leaf, The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds, Mario & Luigi: Dream Team, and Super Mario 3D World
2012 had Paper Mario: Sticker Star, New Super Mario Bros U, and Nintendo Land (Hate me if you must; I liked them)
2011 had Mario Sports Mix, Kirby's Return to Dream Land, and The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword
2010 had Donkey Kong Country Returns, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Kirby's Epic Yarn, and Wario Ware D.I.Y.
2009 had New Super Mario Bros Wii and Wii Sports Resort
2008 had Animal Crossing: City Folk
2007 had Super Paper Mario and Super Mario Galaxy
20XX had...welp, the list doesn't end for me.
@JHDK Eh, I thought 2016 was great. It had a Mario & Luigi game that improved the battle system and mechanics even further, Pokken Tournament, Tokyo Mirage Sessions #FE, a GOOD ND Cube Mario Party game, a better version of Sticker Star, and another great Kirby game. There wasn't much in the third party department, sure, but the first-party titles (aside from maybe TMS#FE) kicked butt. Therefore, the good outweighs the bad.
I'd even say that 2016 was a well-needed recovery for the 3DS after how horrible 2015 was for it (though Wii U did good that year).
@faint @19Robb92 @Varkster
Metascore is a weighted average in that WE ASSIGN MORE IMPORTANCE, OR WEIGHT, TO SOME CRITICS AND PUBLICATIONS THAN OTHERS, BASED ON THEIR QUALITY AND OVERALL STATURE.
That's ripped straight from the site itself. So yes, it is biased.
@BAN Thus Nintendo having a high score despite publishing a lot of stuff (which could lower the average with the amount of crap compared to few but high quality games) is still impressive.
I personally think Bethesda games should not be #1. Hate the quality of their games, especially their open world games, but that's just me. also hate they get free passes from people for the quality, but everybody goes mad when another game is full of bugs.
I give Metacritic’s table a score of 53% for layout and ease of comprehension.
Biggest (pleasant) surprise for me is to see Sega ranked so high
Great result for Nintendo and Bethesda, though I am a bit confused as to how I missed this new instalment of Mario Kart thag was quoted. Nintendo had many great titles last year and it appears that Capcoms constant releases of Street Fighter 2 and old Resident Evil games alongside one new one have kept them up there 😁
Not that surprised Nintendo ranks so high,but more surprised Sega took third. Also expected square enix to be in top 5
But did it start development on Wii U?
Not surprising to be honest. There is such a thing as Nintendo fanboys and Nintendo haters, I've never came across a Bethesda hater though. My point is there were instances where BotW was given a 7/10, while it is widely agreed to be an exceptional game ( DICE awards anyone?). Hence number 1 goes to a publisher that released a handful of shooters that year which people will forget about pretty quickly. Prey and Wolfenstein II are good games, but compared to BotW, Odyssey or MK8DX and Splatoon 2 it's not even a contest.
@Neon_Blues "WE ASSIGN MORE IMPORTANCE, OR WEIGHT, TO SOME CRITICS AND PUBLICATIONS THAN OTHERS, BASED ON THEIR QUALITY AND OVERALL STATURE."
This is actually a good thing. Imagine a great game scoring very high everywhere except one no-name-no-reputation outlet giving it a very low score skewing the final Metascore. They have to account for that.
@TF-Warrior Football Manager will boost Segas ratings every year
@slatanek
Which is another reason why review scores are dumb.
If someone doesn't like something, they're allowed to. You can dislike something good, and like something that's bad. So a person doesn't like something that's popular. So what? That's just one guy.
And by getting rid of review scores, people are then going to have to explain themselves, and if that guy who's saying nothing but bad things can't back it up in a discussion, then it's clear he's a troll and he's never played/watched the thing he's critiquing, so just ignore him.
But hey, if you like review scores, then don't let me stop you. Just my thoughts.
96.4% of statistics are complete rubbish.
Why are so many people being negative in this comment section? Stop bashing Bethesda and Metacritic and be happy that Nintendo snagged that second place spot! I don't even care about number too much but I think this is great news still!
Sega above Actiblizz?
Hohoho.
With the current track record for 2018 I do believe this year nintendo won’t even feature in the charts! Please announce something worthy of remark soon Ninty
@SanderEvers
Exactly the point.
@MrGawain 4/3 of people don't understand statistics anyway
@YummyHappyPills despite what ignorant people like Koizumi say, the commenters on this very website know the real truth. It was always meant to be for the Wii U...
So Bethesda had a legit win due to lack of releases that for low on quantity were high on quality. Nintendo delivered far more games and better rated stuff, but also put out some mediocre crap like 1-2 Switch that alone dragged them into 2nd by a nose. Makes sense when you look at it that way in the big picture.
Nintendo has a lesser score for 'good games' due to ranging grades on a lot of bulk but was perfect on 'great games' with 3. Bethesda released nothing (a 0) great but the few games out were all good and rated exceptionally high. So really the true winner comes down to greatness in what you value more...quantity or quality.
Sega is 3rd? That's surprising.
@Neon_Blues Having review scores is really useful. Rather than read every single review I can glance at the score and be good. With Odyssey for instance I saw a few scores above 8/10 and I was fine - I bought the game and didn't read the reviews cause I didn't want to have it spoiled in any way and wanted to have an uninfluenced opinion on it. Not having scores wouldn't solve any problem and would only create unnecessary inconvenience (see Eurogamer with their useless system)
2nd??? I thought they'd be first at least for one year in a decade. Oh well. Not like 2nd place is bad. GG Bethesda.
This shows what crap this is Bethesda released nothing of the quality of Zelda or Mario this year but is number 1. Metacritic literally serves no purpose.
I don't mind review scores; they've kept me from making some bad purchases. The trick is to try and discern between the legitimate praise and complaints versus the garbage from a very biased individual or group of individuals.
Seeing Nintendo and Sega next to each other reminds me of back in the day when video game companies made the consoles, before corporations saw it as a side think where they can make extra money. And paid exclusives were not really thing, because the video game companies tried to lure people to buy games with their own games that they developed.
How is Sega up there?
This is a head scratcher for me.... How did Bethesda get #1 when virtually everything they touch/release is riddled in bugs? I have yet to play something from them that has not been a glitch-fest in some way.
As for Metacritic, I have to agree that people put too much stock/faith into it. I have seen great games get lower reviews while crappier ones get higher marks. Not to mention the fact there have always been reports of some companies paying to put out "raving reviews" for their games just to raise the score. It is a crappy system that select groups of people put too much faith into to decide if a game is good or not. These groups are unable to think for themselves to form their own opinions as far as I am concerned.
ONLY credit I will give Bethesda is that they have a player base across multiple systems while Nintendo has only their own consoles to play on.
@retro_player_22
EA Was in Middle sized List this year, because they didn't qualify for the major publishers due to lack of releases.
@BAN
You have to release twelve games a year to be qualified for the major publishers series, so Bethesda released at least twelve games.
Don't get me wrong, I think number scores are an important thing and give a statistical measure of how valued a game is, but they shouldn't be the most prominent feature in reviews. I think the written and informative aspect of the reviews out to be emphasized instead of the scores. I'm not saying the number should go away, but maybe make it a more subtle feature, if you know... That's the correct usage of the term. I think it's important to know how
exactly the content holds up via thought out opinion and information. Try to keep one's own opinion in mind in writing review and not the number that the game deserves. Anyway... My little rant.
@Neon_Blues
All reviews are somebody's opinion. Bias is inevitable no matter who rates a game.
But the idea is to get consensus. There may be a small handful of outliers or even bogus reviews but the majority should (and usually does) speak as one.
So yes, I and a great deal of others still put stock into Metacritic. It's not the end-all be-all but it is a very good litmus test of whether or not a game is good. Obviously nobody pays attention to user reviews on MC. We are talking verified reviews from gaming sites.
@19Robb92 Except metacritic isn't a straightforward average. It's a weighted average with score normalization, and metacritic doesn't give out information on how or why they do any of that, so it could all literally just be based on the whims of one or two people.
Gee thanks ARMS. Could have had 1st place if that junk never came out.
@loyalroyal1989 Wolfenstein is every bit as good as Mario and Zelda. I personally liked it better than both.
@Dethmunk I'm assuming 3ds would be counted into this as well. So add in those titles. Might be 12.
@BAN @Neon_Blues
Well.. Yeah. That's more consumer friendly. if you give someone a score from a trusted publication and a score from a unknown publication, who would you personally choose? As with both Metacritic and IMBd, the general consumer will also put more weight to the trusted publications, so the scores they calculate should be even better representations of the consumer consensus than when using a standard average - not worse.
Not to mention, a weighting scheme will also minimise the risk of a smaller publication up-voting or down-voting a game based on pure fanboy-feelings (I mean, just look at the user score for most games...). Technically, I can make my own publication and start giving out perfect 10:s to every Nintendo game. If they didn't use weighting a scheme, my scores would destroy the representativeness of their averages - which would be a bad system to use.
Finally, while I agree that not showing the weighting method is poor practice, it might be the case that if they reveal exactly how they weight their scores it can be abused mathematically by those who provide them and result in bias.
@StephenYap3 The fact that you think 2016 was a great year for nintendo games speaks volumes about how far they'd fallen until the Switch launch.
Understandable, Nintendo publishes quite a number of games including niche titles developed by other companies (common across some of the non-Atlus RPGs). These can have more middle of the road reviews depending on personal tastes.
Although to be honest I don’t know what Bethesda has outside of Fallout, Dishonoured, Elder Scrolls and Doom.
Metacritic is another thing where people need to temper to engage their critical faculties. It isn't an average, they apply weighting which leaves it open to bias. So don't set too much store by the actual Metascore*. However it is handy to get a general feel for a game and a one-stop shop for links to reviews.
*I appreciate saying 'dont read too much into a score' is impossible for a lot of gamers as they can't process a review without a number on but it can be done.
@waluigifan1 Arms has a 77%, because it’s a good game. 1 2 Switch is the bad game bringing the average down with its 58%.
@Mrvengeace182 Because there are good Nintendo games in 2016. Sure, not a lot of them provided as much hype DOOM 2016 had given at the time, but good games are good games.
@Timppis Bethesda did not release at least 12 games last year.
@idrawrobots
Of course they didn't. Metacritic simply ignored their own rules of the publisher rankings for Bethesda...
They always do this, simply ignore any rules they have and arbitrarily assign things to the rankings...
Or maybe Bethesda did publish 12 games?
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...