Idle Weekend April 1, 2016: Now We're Let's Playing with Power in Idle Weekend Episodes Posted April 11, 2016 First, you are mistaken that publishers care what reviews say. Publishers care what makes them money. It is not at all uncommon for games with good reviews to fail to make money, or for games with poor reviews to do quite well. The critical buzz around the first Assassins Creed was not great! 17 Assassins Creed games later, they are only now rethinking their approach because sales began to falter (even though AC Syndicate was probably the best received AC game in years). Metal Gear Solid 5 got pretty outstanding reviews and plenty of GOTY awards, but Konami decided that making games like that and employing Kojima wasn't worth the investment. So they're not doing that anymore. You point to positive review scores for Rainbow Six Siege as dooming future games to have anti-player features. Everything I've read suggests that Siege has been a sales disappointment. I wouldn't be too worried about them making a significantly similar sequel just because reviews didn't call out the things you disliked about it. Second, you say it's okay if reviewers "become critics instead" and doesn't use a review score. Why does that make a difference? Because Metacritic doesn't count unscored reviews? What if Metacritic decided to start assigning a value to text reviews (similar to how Rotten Tomatoes does for movies, inferring a positive/negative)? Would it no longer be acceptable to be a critic? And do your criticisms not apply to reviewers whose sites aren't on Metacritic? Can I give WoW a 2/10 if Metacritic doesn't care what I think? And what if Metacritic changes the way it translates a site's scores, as they did with 1Up years ago--does that mean old reviews that used to be objective are no longer objective? Or what if Metacritic just goes away? This seems like an incredibly arbitrary metric to focus on. Firstly, of course they do. Some companies even give bonus' based on scores, and how else will they know WHY the game flopped. Most huge corporations say "look it did great critically, poor sales must be due to piracy". In the absence of true feedback, people are free to use ego defense. Secondly my point is about what a score represents. For a major site/magazine a game score is a professional stake in the sand about how good a game is. To use rhawick's food metaphor, if a Cheesecake is baked perfectly, but you don't like Lemon for you to score it as a 2/10 Cheesecake. Again as a professional Journalist - or food reviewer - you should know what makes a great Cheesecake so even if you personally don't like it, you can recognise a good one from a bad one as score it on how well it's made and how balanced the flavour is.