Shack: But what about constructive criticism for games that are in-development? I've seen developers change things because of press writings.

Joseph Olin: I don't know that within the realm of interactive entertainment, games in particular, we have a very evolved form of constructive criticism.

I think that there is a lot of game critics, but very little critical analysis. Any time that we can take a step back, and I think sometimes games are given very meaningful reviews where they provide a point of view, they give good coverage as to what the game maker was trying to do, how they were trying to involve you, and I think it's only fair to also point out in the review that some things work better than others, there's some things that were disappointing or didn't live up to the premise or the promise, and I think that's fair.

As someone who wants to buy a game or is a fan of games looking for something to play, that's helpful and useful. If I have a trusting relationship with the writer or the publication, it has more or less importance than others.

When I just see a score, whether it's a Metacritic star or 5 stars or 4 thumbs, whatever, that doesn't tell me anything. My pet peeve is that game reviewers are lazy.

Not all, but in terms of the reviews, "this game isn't as good because let's compare it to that game over there and that game was great." Who gives a, you know, bleep?

My feeling is that games live and die on their own merit, and I am always, thankfully, never surprised when there's as much as a 40% or 50% variance between Metacritic numbers and user numbers. Most people who play games buy games, whether they bought them and traded them in or they rented them for a weekend, they enjoy them. They got some entertainment value out of them above and beyond their expectation threshold when they first did the transaction.

Ultimately, we should be celebrating the fact that ....play more games. If you like games, there's a great variety. A thousand titles a year, there's a whole sub-series and species of genres that are out there that some people probably haven't played.

People who play NCAA pre-ordered it, they have their strategy guide, they have their fantasy draft on paper before launch, getting them tuned up for Madden 09. It's like, "you ever thought of playing something else?"

Part of the fun is trying to get people who do one thing to do something else. There's so many cool things that are happening within the realm of interactive entertainment.

Shack: Then what about video game journalism? Can it even be called journalism?

Joseph Olin: I think you can. I think it exists. I think that there's plenty of writers and members of the Fifth Estate who are thoughtful, serious, credible representatives of interactive entertainment.

And then, I think there are others who aren't. I'm not in a position to do more than to challenge everyone. How can you review a game, how can you give a comment about a game like GTA 4, that has 40-plus hours or more of gameplay, if you've only spent 2 1/2 to 3 hours playing it?

It would be like reviewing a movie but only seeing the opening, first reel. I don't think that's fair, or is it accurate. I also understand the challenge of how anybody can possibly play through everything game. It's an impossibility. There's not enough hours in humanity to be able to beat and review 30 or 40 games in a given month.

Some games obviously don't require it. I don't think you need to go into Franchise Mode in Madden to get the joke.

I do think you need to play all the way through something like Metal Gear [Solid 4] to appreciate what Kojima-san and his team did with that game.

The jury's out for me on GTA 4, as to if you really need to play all 40 hours, but I know you have to spend more than 3 hours. That's the challenge with games as they become more involved and more involving, that they absolutely, positively [become] more time-compelling, and it's a challenge to spend all that time.

Shack: How do you feel about publishers that use a game's Metacritic score to determine bonuses and such?

Joseph Olin: I'm not in a position to comment on business practices of my members. I think that would be taking Metacritic out of context.

Some of our studio members, if their teams win Interactive Achievement Awards, they get bonuses. They get compensated. That's a serious form of recognition.

I don't think that having benchmarks for performance is wrong. Whether Metacritic is a good benchmark is a fair question, and personally, I wouldn't necessarily want to live or die by it.

Unfortunately, within the ecosystem of how games are created, sold and marketed at retail, Metacritic score is a factor. It's the SAT scores [of the industry]. Is the SAT score really an accurate indicator of the potential that my 17-year-old daughter has within the ecosystem of college and her potential as a human being?

On some level, it probably does. Is it the only parameter? No. Is it the most important parameter? I certainly hope not.

Reviewers get advance copies of games, they have unprecedented access to teams in most cases, because it's so important. I think the opportunity is, "how do we find the things that best showcase the potential of the title and promote that to the widest audience possible?"

I think that reviews are important. The relationship between reviews and developers and publishers has always been an up and down, tenuous kind of thing. At the end of the day, it's important, but not the most important [thing].

Ultimately, games live or die based on, hopefully, how well they perform to what they were supposed to do.