What do you think about game reviews?

[Gabriel]

With the current stink about the Gamespot Kane & Lynch review, I think it will be interesting to see some perceptions about reviews in general. Why do you read reviews? Do you feel you can trust reviewers?

[kroogur]

I never bought any game based on a review i usually read the review to get more of an idea about the game then i get the game and form my own opinions. I learned to not trust reviews awhile back thanks to Car&Driver magazine you will typically find alot of adverts for Toyota,Honda,and BMW and lo and behold which cars usually win the tests and comparisons easily?? yup Toyota,Honda and BMW

[Gregory DG]

I read the reviews to see if it's a game worth buying. I was eagerly awaiting the release of MLB 2K7 for the DS. But when the reviews came out totally trashing the game, my heart sank and I stayed away. And it's a good thing I did too. I've tried it since then and it really does stink.

 

I think the ones you should be wary of are the "middle-of-the-road" reviews. If the game gets a score between 5.0 and 7.9, it might be worth it to give it a try. Especially if it's something you already know you'd like.

 

On the other hand, there are games that get these really great reviews that I wouldn't buy anyway. Stuff like Halo 3. Yipee skippy. Another FPS shooter! Gee, I've not see that before!

 

So, basically what I'm saying is: Read the reviews. If the game gets a terrible review, stay away. If a game gets a middle score, you might want to take another look or try the demo if possible.

[joeybastard]

I read reviews to get an idea of the game but I don't really base my purchase on them. For example if every review mentions the controls stink, I'll probably avoid the game but that's about it. I can't really rely too much on a reviewer's idea of whether a game is fun or not because I just find that too subjective.

[MCHufnagel]

Well, I do read reviews to learn about games I'm interested in buying. But I read several from several different sources. I've been using demo's more often for the last couple of years to base game buying decisions on though.

 

I really do a lot of investigating when it comes to buying any product and reviews are still a part of that equation. Like any opinion you read, you have to remember the source.

[Atari5200]

well i know my perception has totally changed since the firing, but I used to go to Gamefaqs or Gamespot and just see what the general consensus was. At least Gamespot had the reviewers score, plus the gamers who voted they averaged it, so you could make somewhat of a decision.

 

I also try to watch X-play but as of late, I see them being pretty biased against one company, and will bash the hell out of a game, but in the end, give it a good review.

 

All in all, not sure who to trust anymore for reviews, for me, it was mostly Gamespot, but I can tell you , it won't be anymore.

[A Sprite]

I prefer openly subjective reviews - the emotion a game brings is just as important as it's mechanics, and the reviewer's personality is going to factor into the final score either way - why hide it? Sites like HonestGamers get more credit from me than any of the magazines, just because I've seen their reviewers defend bad games that entertain them and attack good games that didn't, without pretending their opinion is the last word on the subject.

 

Now to the fun part - bitching about the ones who fuck it up.

 

Here's how they do it -

 

1. Rate the game's quality based on how hard it is.

 

If it's easy enough for a beginner, it's a personal insult. Too hard for the critic, and they cry that making the player die if they hit the wrong button is an obsolete play mechanic. Here's news: Most games aren't made for video game critics.

 

Insane, I know, but let me explain why they aren't the center of the universe: They play more games than anyone else ever will, are hired because they're better at them than most people, and they have a deadline in which to beat the game.

 

They want challenge, but it has to be a challenge they beat in less than a month - that's a narrow window for a developer; how much time is wasted tweaking the difficulty to their tastes in order to avoid a bad review?

 

2. Rate the game's quality compared to the same game on more powerful systems - If all you own is a GBA SP/micro, what do you care about how the X-Box version of Need for Speed: Most Wanted compares? If the GBA version had been released in the last days of the Super Nintendo, we would have shat our pants, and set up tents as we waited outside stores for it's release. Textured polygons?! Multiple race types?! Tons of unlockables?! Fuck Stunt Race!

 

But because it's released now, we get brilliant observations about the lower resolution and lack of long cut scenes - as if you, the customer, would be expecting that cart to contain a PS2 inside it, and only the reviewer could save you.

 

3. Rating the bells and whistles instead of the game: Critics can bitch about Madden throwing in unnecessary extras just as easily as they can turn on 2K sports for making a new football game without all the extras Madden has. This only makes sense to game critics.

 

4. Trying too hard to seem cutting edge: Gamepro informed it's readers there was a Virtua Fighter for the Game Gear, and then informed their readers they didn't want to see it. Let's assume it's so ugly it could compete with the actual Virtua Fighters game.

 

Why wouldn't we want to see that?

 

Even if it's a trainwreck filled with orphans on Christmas, it's worth seeing at least once for the novelty. But the point was just as much about being seen being above caring about an old game as it was giving a history lesson about videogames.

 

The more I think about that kind of logic, the more I can understand why the people in marketing see themselves as part of an editorial team.

Edited December 3, 2007 by A Sprite

[AtariRocks]

I read the reviews but I always make sure to check the gamer score as well. The gamer score is much more important to me than the actual reviewer score although the gamer score is usually a few points higher than the reviewer score. I assume it's because people that like the games are more likely to rate a game than people who don't care.

 

I only check for reviews if I've never heard of a game though and I'm curious about it. Now that most games have a demo for the 360 I'll just play the demo first.

[Atari5200]

A Sprite, I agree with most of everything you said but the 2nd point.

 

While I agree that you shouldn't compare games like GBA to XBOX, but what about the GBA to DS where the game is practically the same game. Or DS games that look like they could be on the GBA, what's the harm in wanting a little more from a machine that can do at least N64 type games, but when most of the games look like they could easily be done, graphically speaking, on the GBA, then yeah, it would kinda be hard to rate it good in that department.

 

PSP i feel is the same way, why shouldn't the games compare to the PS2? I understand it's a portable but there's still that expectation a game has depending on what's system it is based on that systems power.

[Scumdogg]

I don't feel like i've ever really been misled by a review score. Take Spider-Man 3, for instance. After Spider-Man 2, i figured this game was guaranteed to be amazing. Apparently, so did everyone else, as the advertising blitz for it was insane. I was ready to plunk down the money for it sight unseen on release day, and i almost did. Luckily before i got around to buying it i got a new magazine in the mail and saw the review. A huge-deal game being promoted by some very powerful companies, almost universally given mediocre scores by the gaming media, because it was not nearly as good as it should have been. I'm glad i didn't run out and drop $60 on it.

 

Or take Beautiful Katamari, the newest sequel to an innovative and beloved franchise, given fairly mediocre reviews for reasons that some might shrug off. Too short. Lack of anything new. Being a fan of the series, i went out and bought it anyway, and i kinda wish i hadn't. It WAS too short, and most of the game consisted of one environment on different scales, a huge step back from the last console installment's varying environments and goals. It wasn't even a new environment, it was basically a level ripped out of We Love Katamari and given a slight graphical polish.

 

Say what you want, but at the end of the day i think at the end of the day, most reviewers are gamers, and they tend to rate things fairly honestly.

 

I should probably qualify this statement by saying that i really only read magazine reviews. For some reason, even though i'm online pretty constantly, i tend not to read scores at the big review sites. I read Game Informer, EGM, and OXM, because they were all more or less free subscriptions, or in the case of GI, a friend gets it.

[Red 5]

Reviews work for me on this level:

 

If the game is given less than a 7.9 as an average, I usually avoid it.

 

IGN has a nice feature that lets you see what the industry average is for a review.

[moycon]

I prefer to read real gamers reviews. Ones on sites like this, or in the readers section of other videogame sites.

[Scumdogg]

I prefer to read real gamers reviews. Ones on sites like this, or in the readers section of other videogame sites.

 

 

Real gamer reviews have their own pitfalls too, like the fanboy factor. People heaping praise upon Rayman: Raving Rabbids despite poor controls and several downright unfun mini games, simply because there was nothing else to play at the Wii launch and they had to justify their camping out and their missing $300 (i bought it guys, and it SUCKS. Thanks a lot!). Or negative comments based on the fact that a game was "too long" for someone to get into, or they just don't understand how to play it. FPS-haters dismissing a game like Bioshock without ever playing it.

Nine times out of ten, i'd trust a "professional" i don't know over just some guy i don't know.

[bdog_147]

I like IGN for reviews to get an idea about a game first, then look on AA and other gaming forums I look at to see what others think. If I really think I'll enjoy it and it got a descent score I'll buy it. If I'm really not sure, then I'll rent it or wait for it to drop down to 20 bucks. Most games these days tend to be short now so I have been avoiding buying alltogether....and I don't have the money right now to buy games anyways....

Edited December 3, 2007 by bdog_147

[Atari5200]

i look to the forums to mostly as well, but I will also check out Gamefaqs, but I'll look to see if a game has an average or poor review and read those first, because, which I've think it's been said before, Gamefaqs has a lot of fanboy reviews that are going to give a game a great score based only on the system it's for. Gamespot at least has a scale for gamer score, but I never felt that Gamespot unfairly reviewed games to begin with.

[8th lutz]

I lost trust in game reviews years ago. Gameinformer isn't what it was years ago. Gameinformer is own by a retail chain. Gameinformer was known for giving games higher ratings then other magazines gave the same game. I depend on reviews by other gamers more.

 

I put in some stock into a review depending in the game reviewers favorite genre in the past. I found some reviewers have the same taste in Genres as I did. The was a game reviewer for Gameinformer that gave Bomberman a bad score because he didn't like the genre bomberman was in back in 1994 or 1995. I didn't trust that person in some genres. I go buy a game if the game is over a 6.5.

 

I felt some game were underated at the time of the review. Phantasy Star 4 and Shining Force 2 were underated by Gameinformer when they were first released. Phantasy Star got a 7.25 as an average score and Shining Force 2 got a 6.75. Those 2 games are now are looked at differently now then they were back then. I decided to rent Phantasy Star 4 and I enjoyed it very much.

[moycon]

Real gamer reviews have their own pitfalls too, like the fanboy factor.

 

Granted, but when you have 100's of reviews and ratings broken down by percentages it gives a clear overall picture. The idiots that give a game an undeserved 0 or 10 kinda cancle themselves out when you can see 81% of the people gave it a 6

[+Random Terrain]

I don't feel like i've ever really been misled by a review score. Take Spider-Man 3, for instance. After Spider-Man 2, i figured this game was guaranteed to be amazing. Apparently, so did everyone else, as the advertising blitz for it was insane. I was ready to plunk down the money for it sight unseen on release day, and i almost did. Luckily before i got around to buying it i got a new magazine in the mail and saw the review. A huge-deal game being promoted by some very powerful companies, almost universally given mediocre scores by the gaming media, because it was not nearly as good as it should have been. I'm glad i didn't run out and drop $60 on it.

I didn't read any reviews for Spider-Man 3. I borrowed it a week or two ago for the PS2 and holy crap did it suck. I hated in the first game how you couldn't go down to street level, but the feeling of web slinging felt natural and intuitive. The second game had some almost impossible boring tasks that you couldn't skip and the web slinging didn't feel as cool as the first, so I gave up on that. I thought the third game was going to be great since it looked like they weren't going to force you to do crappy stuff, but the controls sucked. Nothing natural or intuitive about them. It felt like I was fighting the controls instead of the bad guys. They had it right in the first game, just expand on that instead of screwing it all up.

 

You can bet that I'll read the reviews next time before I waste my time on irritating crap.

[DragonmasterDan]

I used to work for a game magazine back in the heyday of print publications as well as for a number of online media outlets.

 

I've run into problems with publishers before. There is definitely a need for any large media outlet be it a print magazine, large website or a decent sized fan site to keep potential advertisers and supporters of your organization happy.

 

Here is a story I posted recently on another web forum about just such an incident.

 

In previous working experience in the gaming industry I've tried to avoid giving bad reviews by simply choosing not to review the game. In one particularly memorable instance a certain publishers PR firm had been hyping their clients work for months on end and appeared quite convinced their multiplatform action adventure title which had a deal for movie rights in place prior to ever releasing a game in the series (and yes the game came first) was going to be a mega selling monster hit.

 

I had dealt with this particular PR agent directly and upon receiving copies of the game for multiple platforms shortly prior to the games release I realized there was no way I could review this, the game was quite frankly bad (which on the video game scale would put it at a 5 or 6 out 10) and my review would certainly damage my relationship with the PR firm (who handled PR for several other publishers in addition to the one I just mentioned). So I sent it off to another reviewer, they had the same impression.

 

After several weeks of post no review for any of the versions of the title the PR agent contacted me and asked why, in one of the most difficult responses I ever had to give I tried to kindly explain that if they REALLY wanted a review I could post it, but it wouldn't be pleasant.

 

In writing this post I looked up the average review score of the game I'm referring to in question via gamerankings, it's in the high 60s, meaning.. it's bad.

[DragonmasterDan]

I lost trust in game reviews years ago. Gameinformer isn't what it was years ago. Gameinformer is own by a retail chain. Gameinformer was known for giving games higher ratings then other magazines gave the same game. I depend on reviews by other gamers more.

 

Game Informer was always owned by a retail chain, it was originally started by Funcoland who when purchased by Barnes and Noble combined with Babbages and Software Etc to form Gamestop.

 

I put in some stock into a review depending in the game reviewers favorite genre in the past. I found some reviewers have the same taste in Genres as I did. The was a game reviewer for Gameinformer that gave Bomberman a bad score because he didn't like the genre bomberman was in back in 1994 or 1995. I didn't trust that person in some genres. I go buy a game if the game is over a 6.5.

 

It's something that happens but is a lot less common than it used to be, sometimes it's just due to assignments. If it's the busy season of the year for reviews at a large publication some games do get reviewed by people who aren't as optimistic about the style of game. In even older eras a group of several reviews handled all the reviews meaning they played every game, and usually not completing them before writing their reviews. A famous example of this at a big publication was EGMs Sushi X character who when written by Ken Williams hated GameBoy games for one reason or another. EGM only had four or five people writing reviews at a time and as a result you'd frequently see low scores given to games that were in genres (or on platforms) that the reviewer in question didn't like.

I felt some game were underated at the time of the review. Phantasy Star 4 and Shining Force 2 were underated by Gameinformer when they were first released. Phantasy Star got a 7.25 as an average score and Shining Force 2 got a 6.75. Those 2 games are now are looked at differently now then they were back then. I decided to rent Phantasy Star 4 and I enjoyed it very much.

 

That happened a lot, in the earlier generations of gaming RPGs in particular were frequent victims of being underrated since they required a lot of playing time. As a result they were frequently not played through to completion before being reviewed.

[Scumdogg]

Real gamer reviews have their own pitfalls too, like the fanboy factor.

 

Granted, but when you have 100's of reviews and ratings broken down by percentages it gives a clear overall picture. The idiots that give a game an undeserved 0 or 10 kinda cancle themselves out when you can see 81% of the people gave it a 6

 

 

Ah, i didn't realize you meant like the collective fan feedback reviews of one particular site. As i mentioned before i don't really check into any big review sites, so i just assumed fan reviews meant people on message boards, gamefaqs, and the like. Checking an overall percentage of that does make sense.

[DragonmasterDan]

Ah, i didn't realize you meant like the collective fan feedback reviews of one particular site. As i mentioned before i don't really check into any big review sites, so i just assumed fan reviews meant people on message boards, gamefaqs, and the like. Checking an overall percentage of that does make sense.

 

The problem with using an overall percentage of fan reviews to gauge a games quality is that it fails to take into account that a lot of fans who vote or review typically have far less experience than professional (or high level amateur working on large websites) game reviewers. It also leads to games with more militant fan bases garnering higher scorers with the instant 10s being more excessive.

[8th lutz]

 

Game Informer was always owned by a retail chain, it was originally started by Funcoland who when purchased by Barnes and Noble combined with Babbages and Software Etc to form Gamestop.

 

I was aware of it. What I meant was since Gameinformer was taken over by gamestop, they changed things. They no longer give the cover of a game to the best game with the best rating or 2nd best rating of the month. Nowdays they use the cover just to hype up a game for preorders. I am saying that because a good amount games on covers of gameinformer were bad to average games. Gameinformer in the old days had games on covers like Lunar 2: Eternal Blue. That cover was supposed to have Crono Trigger, but the creator of the artwork for the game didn't want Crono on the cover. That proved Game Informer was after putting very good games on a cover.

 

Some of their ratings for games in the past were out of wack compared to magazines like in given ratings to games like Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door. Here is the comparision from Game Rankings: http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages4/920182.asp

 

They admitted to their message board that they rated Paper Mario: The thousand-year Door based on what they think the gamers wanted for a score for the game. They gave the game 6.75 as a result. They also said they didn't rate the game based on what they really thought of the game. They didn't do that under Funco land.

 

When Gamestop took over they changed how the show the rating of the the game. They only show the average of the rating of the game. That meant they didn't show the score for the Concept, graphics, sound playability and Entertainment. That shows there is a possibilty Before Gamestop took over the magazine, gameinformer showed the rating for all the categories they had. Gameinformer showed they had some creditability back in the day by showing how they got the average score of the game.

[DragonmasterDan]

I was aware of it. What I meant was since Gameinformer was taken over by gamestop, they changed things. They no longer give the cover of a game to the best game with the best rating or 2nd best rating of the month. Nowdays they use the cover just to hype up a game for preorders. I am saying that because a good amount games on covers of gameinformer were bad to average games. Gameinformer in the old days had games on covers like Lunar 2: Eternal Blue. That cover was supposed to have Crono Trigger, but the creator of the artwork for the game didn't want Crono on the cover. That proved Game Informer was after putting very good games on a cover.

 

Some of their ratings for games in the past were out of wack compared to magazines like in given ratings to games like Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door. Here is the comparision from Game Rankings: http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages4/920182.asp

 

They admitted to their message board that they rated Paper Mario: The thousand-year Door based on what they think the gamers wanted for a score for the game. They gave the game 6.75 as a result. They also said they didn't rate the game based on what they really thought of the game. They didn't do that under Funco land.

 

When Gamestop took over they changed how the show the rating of the the game. They only show the average of the rating of the game. That meant they didn't show the score for the Concept, graphics, sound playability and Entertainment. That shows there is a possibilty Before Gamestop took over the magazine, gameinformer showed the rating for all the categories they had. Gameinformer showed they had some creditability back in the day by showing how they got the average score of the game.

 

Well my point is it being owned by a retail chain isn't what has led to its unreliability but rather just poor writing and being over focused on a particular demographic.

 

Some years ago you are correct, Game Informer went under a makeover. Prior to the makeover GameInformer had a very strong emphasis on game reviews. When Funcoland was purchased by GameStop the magazine changed to better cater to the newly formed Gamestop's demographics. Meaning rather than being aimed at Funcoland customers (a generally younger more casual gaming crowd) the magazine took the direction of being aimed at what is now considered to be the "hardcore gaming" crowd (a heavy emphasis on first or third person shooters, an older target audence and a general more mature theme).

 

As far as the Paper Mario story goes, this is the first I'd heard of it though admittedly I generally don't keep up with their controversies since I was never an avid fan of the publication to begin with, but it doesn't surprise me to read that they were intentionally underscoring a title like Paper Mario, in order to "better serve" their target demographic they apparently are using the rather unprofessional tactic of catering to your audience by showing hostility towards products that don't cater under your proffered demographics tastes.

[A Sprite]

Ah, i didn't realize you meant like the collective fan feedback reviews of one particular site. As i mentioned before i don't really check into any big review sites, so i just assumed fan reviews meant people on message boards, gamefaqs, and the like. Checking an overall percentage of that does make sense.

 

The problem with using an overall percentage of fan reviews to gauge a games quality is that it fails to take into account that a lot of fans who vote or review typically have far less experience than professional (or high level amateur working on large websites) game reviewers. It also leads to games with more militant fan bases garnering higher scorers with the instant 10s being more excessive.

 

But you also get militant reactionaries scoring 0s and 1s on games that are at worst average, so it's actually balanced out in the end. The advantage to fan reviews is a game often exists only as itself - it's features are new to someone experiencing them for the first time. The only question asked is"did I enjoy this, and why/why not?" More importantly, you'll find reviews scattered out over the course of several years, allowing more of a perspectice than an industry writer is allowed.

 

If I seemed too harsh initially on professional reviewers. I apologize. But I believe the current state of the craft is lacking something not missing in film reviews, or in consumer reports. Seldom is it asked if a game achieves what it's team intended for it to do - far too often, I see the opinions of fans of a game a reviewer doesn't like dismissed as being irrelevant ( in a review of Ultimate Ghouls n' Ghosts, one critic defending himself against imaginary complaints about the difficulty being rated poorly by suggesting the fans would defend the game no matter how bad it was ) and worse, sometimes reviewers defending their opinion as a fact ( My favorite example was Gamepro's Major Mike rating Virtua Fighter 3 as a shallow button masher, then when responding to a reader's complaint, asking who was going to take the time to learn all those moves? )

 

When that happens, the only difference between a professional writer and an amateur fan is how well the transitions are placed between each thought.

Edited December 4, 2007 by A Sprite