It’s a well known fact that the best games are the ones that achieve the highest score on Metacritic or Game Rankings. Okay, so perhaps it isn’t a fact, but it seems that it pads any argument for or against a game, regardless of most people’s position on the actual ratings themselves. I’ve been guilty in the past of recommending a game based on the rankings, if I hadn’t had a chance to play through it myself. It’s an easy metric, and while I’m not going to discuss the merits of the system, it is worth talking about how these numbers actually measure up to sales (another bragging point for message board mercenaries).

Before the weekend, I caught a post from Patrick Klepek of the MTV Multiplayer Blog showing off a list of publishers with games at a higher score than 80 on Metacritic. EA had recently gone on a bragging whirlwind regarding their 17 titles that made the list, including stand outs like Dead Space and the latest in the Madden and NHL series. Turns out that EA wasn’t a far and away winner, since it seems that Sony picked up 15 titles of their own, which is a pretty strong showing for a first party publisher. They had titles like Resistance 2, PixelJunk Eden and Patapon in the mix, all of which performed fairly well. However, powerhouses in the market like Nintendo and Activision-Blizzard could only muster 11 games between them, yet still hold the lion’s share of the sales.

If you’re looking for a pattern, there really isn’t one. EA may have had the best critical success across the board, but it certainly did translate into great sales across the board as the company is in a bit of financial turmoil at the moment due to weak performances from some high profile games. Sony isn’t exactly looking chipper, either, with job cuts looming in certain sectors and sales of the console dipping well below their competitors. Activision-Blizzard on the other hand are making money hand over fist with the few games they have on the list, one of course being World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King and another in Call of Duty: World at War. Nintendo can enjoy the same success with Wii Fit continuing to rake in cash, along with Mario Kart Wii.

Having more critically acclaimed games doesn’t necessarily translate to stronger sales, but perhaps it is the concentration of these titles that makes a leaner and more profitable company. Well, from a quick scan of games released this year, it seems that while EA did publish more game (around 120) Activision didn’t fall far behind with 90 or so. These aren’t all triple A releases, but that’s kind of the point. EA certainly edged them in the quality and quantity department (according to Metacritic), but then Nintendo’s mere 29 releases on the year give it a better hit/miss ratio than EA. If that doesn’t matter, and the amount of quality titles you release doesn’t matter, than what should publishers be aiming for?

EA is certainly trying to find out. It’s pulled back the reigns on its staff, on its titles for next year and even approaching digital download solutions in a way that many didn’t think they could. Dropping SecuROM from their flagship titles this year to push onto Steam is certainly a new direction, but it’s the trimming down that should make the biggest impact. EA took a chance with games like Mirror’s Edge which didn’t take too well critically and definitely did not favour well in the market. Gamers want good quality games, but those that frequent message boards and Metacritic and pay closer attention to these scores is a limited number, that grows at a much slower rate than the expanding market outside the core demographics. While we all gloat about our favourites, but the fact that so many high quality titles get pushed out in the same time frame means that even the best have to fall down. When it comes to online, people will go with what they know because it has the biggest community (Call of Duty, WoW) and offline single/multiplayer player games tend to either grab you on unique gameplay mechanics or familiarity (Rock Band 2, Grand Theft Auto 4).

The real answer here seems to be about creating your own genres, or at least taking a very strong control of something once you’ve gotten your formula right. Nintendo seems to be rather risk tolerant company, releasing titles with little to no precedent and managing both critical and economical success with titles like Wii Fit while taking hits with flops and slow-burns like Wii Music. They still manage to hit well with their storied franchises like Mario Kart and Super Smash Bros. but will take shots in the dark at markets that many didn’t know existed, and probably didn’t. Activision is more of the latter than anything, absorbing the right groups and making games that focus on popular franchises that will do well from year to year. It’s not that the games are bad, but the mantra is do it well, do it again, and it seems to be working.

High ranking games aren’t always going to sell, but bad rankings can certainly kill a good game where the demographic falls right into the kind of people who would read the reviews. Had Braid reviewed so well, would it have sold as well as it did? What about Wii Fit? It’s impossible to guess sales based on what a game receives at the critics table, but for some developers having that number might just be enough to get the sense of accomplishment needed, and a new job after, even if the bonus doesn’t necessarily come.