Irrational, the developers behind the BioShock series, are looking for a Design Manager. That’s fine in itself, of course, but one of the requirements seems a little bit thought-provoking, at least.
Alongside needing six years as a game designer and a minimum of three shipped titles, the position also requires that the applicant have “credit on at least one game with an 85+ Average Meta Critic Review Score.”
Wanting the best for your company (and game) isn’t anything new, but does a game’s Metacritic score really reflect a game’s complete critical standing, and would such a limitation exclude amazing talent stuck on a substandard game?
And surely, all things considered, the Metacritic score is a reflection on the game, or the studio, rather than the individual. You can’t extrapolate this further without it seeming odd – TSA has never won any industry awards, for example, but we’ve got some fantastic writers.
And a Metacritic score – as useful as it can be when quickly wanting an overall singular opinion on a game at quick notice, often has little bearing on a game’s commercial success. Not always, anyway.
I personally like Metacritic, I think it’s great, but there’s more and more emphasis being placed on its game scores every year: in some cases bonuses are only paid to developers if a game reaches a certain score, for example, and this takes that one further.
Just thought it was interesting, and hopefully there’ll be some discussion from this.