Did Metacritic scores (non-user) affect Andromeda sales?

This is circular logic, though. They sell great because they're great games. They're great games so their reviews are great. Their reviews are great so they sell great.

There is a kernel of the game being good, but the whole point of the thread is how much extra score (be it negative or positive) is generated by the review system to begin with. BOTW, for instance, wouldn't have reviewed anywhere near as well as it did if it had been simply judged on its own merits and not simply been a Zelda game that brought new stuff to the series.

That isn't enough to explain it by itself, otherwise stuff like Destiny and Call of Duty selling more than HZD mean they're better than it. Also sports games sell more than RPGs so hey, must be better, right?

Well, kind of. They are better for the people who enjoy those types of games. Madden sells a whole lot because people enjoy the game and it's really the only NFL game available. Does the number of people buying Madden change each year depending on their review score? Doubtful. The people that buy Madden every year will do so regardless of if it gets a 75 or a 95. That's why looking in-genre is better for this kind of analysis. RPG to RPG, sport game to sport game, etc. You can't really compare sales of COD to sales of Kingdoms of Amalur when discussing review scores. You need a similar player base.

Which, again, is why I say that the statistics here are interesting, but not particular meaningful. Sales can be influenced by when the game came out, competition from other games, advertising, controversies, etc.

I mean, you can look at the data and see that as the number of pirates in the world has decreased, the average sea temperature has increased. Meaningful? No. An accurate statement? Sure. Correlation doesn't imply causation.

In this case I just don't feel there is enough reduction of variables to make everything comparable, and to me seems much more likely that sales of good games are higher than sales of bad games because of overall game quality instead of review scores. That won't always be true, but I'm general the impact review scores has on sales, especially when talking about Metacritic specifically, is probably negligible.

If there was some kind of aggregate of YouTube creator reviews, I think that would have a bigger impact. People care way more about what Total Biscuit thinks about a game than what Forbes does, for the most part. I think people would be more inclined to go to their "go-to" reviewer than base the decision on Metacritic.

That, of course, is all speculation. But as to the data provided, I would say most of it is incomparable.

It always did, some companies tie bonuses and other incentives to high metacritic scores. Bethesda most famously did that with Fallout: New Vegas.

Hey, Fluffy!
I see the suggestions for anger management fell on deaf ears.

No. 

I had just gotten DA:O in 2014 and was nowhere near finished with it. I was enjoying it a lot, but I make it a point to finish the first game in a series before other games. I made the mistake of playing ME2 before ME1 and playing Skyrim before Morrowind and Oblivion; both instances left me very confused as to what was going on in the respective series' sequels. So I play the first game in a series nowadays. Regardless, I have friends who are into gaming, and friends of friends who are into gaming. I can't think of anyone in my circle who was really excited for DAI but I know at least several of those same people bought the game anyway.

What that tells me is that DAI exceeded its expectations. That doesn't necessarily mean any of my friends thought it'd be bad, but despite a lack of visible enthusiasm before purchasing it, bought it and played it anyway. I still haven't had the time to pick up Inquisition and run through it but I want to.



Expectations =/= Pressure.

True, DAI needed to be good, but a lot of people counted it out early and it ended up being successful anyway. Andromeda had more hype built around it, but much of that fizzled out after the demo released and the game was hijacked into being a giant meme.

Ooh, that would make for an interesting study. Does perception/press of the game prior to launch affect review scores? If there hadn't been there "Ugly Sara" and Sara's memed facial expression from her Sloane encounter and Manvier Heir and ME3 endings, would review scores have been higher?

Did Bethesda? They were only the publisher of FNV. At no moment in time did they own Obsidian. Obsidian was a third party developer and I don't see which bonusses they could have tied to FNV.

People can say what they want about Metacritic, but if EA has focus groups that predict metacritic scores, they must think that it has an effect on sales. If someone wants to know if a game is good or not, or wants to see some reviews, where are they going to go? Metacritic, all the reviews are there in one place.

So if the first thing that pops up when you hit the site is a green 90 or a yellow 72, it probably does influence peoples' perception of the game. No different than when a movie comes out and people go straight to Rotten Tomatoes and see either that rotten or fresh symbol and a score.

I've heard plenty of people say I was going to go see (insert movie) but it only got a (insert score) on rotten tomatoes, so I'm gonna wait until it hits cable. I figure the same thing happens with Metacritic, but instead of waiting for cable, its waiting until it goes on sale.

You would be incorrect.

Also as I said, OpenCritic is a better aggregate than Metacritic, also better curated although it includes entertainment channels on it.