If you're not familiar with https://metacritic.com, it's basically rotten tomatoes except it also covers video games and music. I remember looking at the list of greatest games as a kid and wanting to try them all 
and being excited when a new game got ratings good enough to be anywhere near the top 
In short, metacritic is both a driver of game sales and a source of pride for neurodivergent g*mer fanboys 
It has thus become a source of drama that the third-best switch game of all time is The House in Fata Morgana, a visual novel about inhabitants of a spooky mansion. 
With a rating of 96/100, it ranks higher than Zelda ToTK 
and every other switch game besides Mario Odyssey 
and Zelda BoTW 
.
If you're not familiar with the concept of a "visual novel", it's basically a game composed entirely of text-based, click-to-proceed cutscenes, with music 
and anime-style 
art to set the mood. So in other words with the exception of 3 or 4 "choose your own adventure" moments across 40+ hours of text, it's more like a book than a game.
So naturally, having been tricked into reading a book by metacritic, a lot of g*mers are not happy 
. It is a testament to how good the "game"/"book" is that it has maintained a user score of 8.6/10 when the review section is filled with seething reviews of people who are mad that they got tricked into purchasing a book:
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Reminds me of the time when one reviewer on EGM's panel for Wind Waker only gave it a 9.5 instead of a 10, denying it an “EGM Platinum” and causing much Nintendocel seethe. Fanmoids and fanfoids always get very snippy if a “greatest games” list isn't arranged exactly how they say it should.
No g*mer ever cared about Metacritic beyond its capacity to validate their own opinions though. Some game studios did (Bethesda got really mad at Obsidian when F:NV couldn't get an 85) but I think that's rarer now.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Bethesda didn't "get mad" at Obsidian, that one point cost Obsidian a significant chunk of bonus cash. They're not the only studio that happened to, either.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
What would they get cash for for more points?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It was part of their contract with Bethesda. Obsidian got paid a set amount to develop Fallout: New Vegas. As an incentive, they were promised a bonus if it hit an 85 on Metacritic since that translates to sales.
The game got an 84 and Obsidian was denied the bonus.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Lmao bethesda probably bribed them so they didnt have to pay
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Maybe, maybe not
They did force Obsidian to release before the game was fully developed
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Obsidian signed a contract saying they would release after 18 months. Obsidian as always couldn't make a functional mod (since NV is just Fallout 3 in a desert) in the time they agreed to and then got pissy when Bethesda didn't let them breach the contract.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
A lot of agreements between developers and publishers have bonus payouts for achieving certain targets. A common target for a while was hitting a certain metascore, in F:NV's case Obsidian would have been paid a couple million extra if they hit 85. They missed it by 1 point.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context