Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Game Reviews - What Are They Good For?
Does anybody actually use game reviews to make informed purchase decisions anymore?
I used to. Back in the 80's and 90's when a release wasn't embarassingly "old-school" by the time the print review came out, I used to actually read the full text of game reviews, and even had some favorite reviewers. Fellow gamers didn't snicker behind their hands and say, "Dude, didn't you realize that game was released like EIGHT WEEKS ago? We're all playing something else, now!"
I guess everyone rents the game on Release Tuesday, and have it finished two weeks later. There's no purpose in discussing it further! The review is now the culmination of a discussion about a game, not the introduction.
I can only assume that they serve SOME kind of purpose in the grand scheme of things, because online gaming sites fall all over themselves trying to get positioning on search engines for the word "review" mixed with the title of a hotly anticipated game. In the print world, having the best reviews might have mattered, but no more. It's all about down-to-the-minute timeliness and keywords, not content. So we have sites that have stooped to posting a review of the pre-release DEMO of a hotly anticipated game (or even the trailer video!). All so that they'll be on page 1 of a search engine query by some poor consumer who might, you know, actually be looking for a real review of the game. Which will undoubtedly appear as well, quite often without the reviewer actually finishing the game for the sake of speed. Post now, edit later! (Kinda like how I create my blog articles...)
And then how do they get used? Maybe it's just the vocal minority of the denizens of Teh Internets, but it seems that the purpose of the reviews - at least for highly anticipated titles - is merely to confirm the pre-existing belief system of the audience. Maybe they are looking for justification of their purchase, or to belong to the "in" crowd of hardcore gamers (is that some kind of oxymoron?). But post a less-than-stellar review of a popular game - at least within the twenty-day attention span of today's gamer - and you will be burned in effigy by legions of fanboys... even those who haven't played the full game, yet.
Does anybody actually use game reviews to decide on what game to buy anymore? Or has the immediacy of Internet communities done away with this in favor of immediate "word of mouth" buzz? (Some of which, remember, is generated by shills... er, excuse me... "viral marketers")
Is the historic role of the game review - to educate the consumer - now being fulfilled by previews, which are almost by definition uniformly favorable and saturated with marketing propaganda?
Does anybody really care about game reviews anymore, beyond a simple numerical score that can be averaged together with similar scores on GameRankings.com?
If this is a problem, is it unique (or more acute) in the video game biz, or is it common across other media?
What are game reviews good for anymore?
(Vaguely) related rants:
* The Worst Game Ever
* R.I.P. Computer Gaming World
* Game Journalism and the Games Industry
* Fallout Over the Fallout 3 Trailer
* This Isn't Viral Marketing!
.
Labels: Biz, Mainstream Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 11:11 PM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
You know, I wonder if game reviews might not serve a bigger purpose outside of the mainstream AAA title market, particularly in long tail markets such as independent games.
It's unlikely that I'm going to find out about an indie title when it first comes out. I'm just not that hyper-aware. Typically, I find out about them from bloggers like yourself who work in the space -- but I also pick them up from blogs/news sites like Gamers With Jobs, who have recently put up a weekly "casual/downloadable" column. I played through the first chapter of Death in Sakkara based on their recommendation, and a couple of other titles reached me that might not otherwise. (That game doesn't turn up in GameRankings, GameFAQs, nor Metacritic, despite garnering some forum discussion elsewhere.)
So, I can definitely see the use of reviews here, for cutting through the chaff. There are lots of indie games being put out, and it's more than I can manage to track them, particularly with so many shooters and match-three games.
The other thing I use them for is to find those oddball games that maybe aren't hitting the big sales numbers. I don't know how Persona 3 is doing at retail, but reviews have largely turned me on to picking up that game. It looks really interesting, with the life sim/rpg crossover.
I do read Chris Kohler's reviews, partly because I'm curious to know what's hitting a larger audience (the Wired audience, in this case, which probably has a fair amount of cross-over with the hardcore), and partly because he generally has interesting things to say (and perspectives that are broader than 'net fanboyism).
Finally, I read them largely to track trends. Opening EGM or (now-defunct) OPM or CGW/GfW tells me more or less what's coming out -- granted, it's primarily the same old story.
It's unlikely that I'm going to find out about an indie title when it first comes out. I'm just not that hyper-aware. Typically, I find out about them from bloggers like yourself who work in the space -- but I also pick them up from blogs/news sites like Gamers With Jobs, who have recently put up a weekly "casual/downloadable" column. I played through the first chapter of Death in Sakkara based on their recommendation, and a couple of other titles reached me that might not otherwise. (That game doesn't turn up in GameRankings, GameFAQs, nor Metacritic, despite garnering some forum discussion elsewhere.)
So, I can definitely see the use of reviews here, for cutting through the chaff. There are lots of indie games being put out, and it's more than I can manage to track them, particularly with so many shooters and match-three games.
The other thing I use them for is to find those oddball games that maybe aren't hitting the big sales numbers. I don't know how Persona 3 is doing at retail, but reviews have largely turned me on to picking up that game. It looks really interesting, with the life sim/rpg crossover.
I do read Chris Kohler's reviews, partly because I'm curious to know what's hitting a larger audience (the Wired audience, in this case, which probably has a fair amount of cross-over with the hardcore), and partly because he generally has interesting things to say (and perspectives that are broader than 'net fanboyism).
Finally, I read them largely to track trends. Opening EGM or (now-defunct) OPM or CGW/GfW tells me more or less what's coming out -- granted, it's primarily the same old story.
I find it interesting that reviews online are longer than those in print publications. However, print publications I find are much more interesting content-wise than review websites.
I guess the point I'd drive to is what have reviews ever been good for? They've always been a small section, typically at the back, of print publications. Print always spent 75% of its space telling you about what was coming and 25% of the space telling you about what is.
Is it possible that we perceive reviews to be lacking because online review websites haven't informed us as well about games as we were informed previously? I find it interesting that the internet often focuses on quick pieces of information, while deeper, longer stories are rare.
What good have reviews ever been? I think what we really want is awareness and information. Reviews may help with the first, but often, due to their critical nature, they aren't as good at the second.
I guess the point I'd drive to is what have reviews ever been good for? They've always been a small section, typically at the back, of print publications. Print always spent 75% of its space telling you about what was coming and 25% of the space telling you about what is.
Is it possible that we perceive reviews to be lacking because online review websites haven't informed us as well about games as we were informed previously? I find it interesting that the internet often focuses on quick pieces of information, while deeper, longer stories are rare.
What good have reviews ever been? I think what we really want is awareness and information. Reviews may help with the first, but often, due to their critical nature, they aren't as good at the second.
I read reviews - I've always read reviews. Maybe I'm strange that way.
Of course, I don't trust big magazines to be giving totally unbiased opinions of bigname titles. I don't think GameSpot are total sycophants, because they have no fear of giving out really low scores when they feel like it, but for the most part I consider a bigname magazine review to be a features overview. A longer version of the back-of-box blurb. This is what's supposed to be in the game, here are the major caveats you may need to look out for. It's general game information.
For decisions on 'is it fun' and 'is it worth it' I tend to look for unprofessional reviews - commentary by someone else who actually paid for the game and played it, and whether they enjoyed it or not. And how well it ran on different machines. And whether it included evil copy protection. Heck, I'm not even considering buying Bioshock until I see some play reports.
Reviews are important because they tell me whether a game is interesting enough to look into further.
Of course, I don't trust big magazines to be giving totally unbiased opinions of bigname titles. I don't think GameSpot are total sycophants, because they have no fear of giving out really low scores when they feel like it, but for the most part I consider a bigname magazine review to be a features overview. A longer version of the back-of-box blurb. This is what's supposed to be in the game, here are the major caveats you may need to look out for. It's general game information.
For decisions on 'is it fun' and 'is it worth it' I tend to look for unprofessional reviews - commentary by someone else who actually paid for the game and played it, and whether they enjoyed it or not. And how well it ran on different machines. And whether it included evil copy protection. Heck, I'm not even considering buying Bioshock until I see some play reports.
Reviews are important because they tell me whether a game is interesting enough to look into further.
I may be just as strange as you, Whiner :)
I think what we really want is awareness and information. Reviews may help with the first, but often, due to their critical nature, they aren't as good at the second.
Very interesting point. I have always thought of it as the other way around - the purpose of reviews being to inform the consumer, while previews are more for raising awareness. But you may be right - the role is now more of an announcement that a game is available and a value judgement.
I really look at reviews for four purposes, I guess:
#1 - An informed, more-or-less professional word-of-mouth recommendation. I have friends whose opinion I trust, and there are reviewers whose opinion I trust. That helps me make purchase decisions.
#2 - Discussion of a game I'm already familiar with. I guess I'm in the fanboy camp in this one, a little. I like talking about games. I like to listen to other people talk about games I have played, compare their opinions to my own, and get different perspectives.
#3 - To be informed about the state of the market - what games are out there, what they are like, what features they sport, and so forth. I can't play them all, so I rely on reviewers to help me know what I'm missing (and to let me know if there's anything I shouldn't be missing).
#4 - Entertainment value. A lot of CGW's reviews back in the old days (early / mid 90's for me) were like this. Just well-written reviewers sharing their thoughts and insights on games. It was fun to read just for the sake of reading.
Too many reviews (especially on the Internet, but print is hardly blameless) don't fulfill any of these needs very well. Maybe I'm just jaded and crochety, but I'm wondering why not.
In the case of #1 - it's hard to get to know and trust individual reviewers these days. The market's too crowded, and any 13-year-old fanboy can spout off crap which gets the same real-estate on the Internet as Kieron Gillen's best work.
For #2 and #4, the discussions are often far too shallow, in spite of sometimes being more wordy.
I guess #3 is still there, and so the reviews still fulfill that purpose.
I think what we really want is awareness and information. Reviews may help with the first, but often, due to their critical nature, they aren't as good at the second.
Very interesting point. I have always thought of it as the other way around - the purpose of reviews being to inform the consumer, while previews are more for raising awareness. But you may be right - the role is now more of an announcement that a game is available and a value judgement.
I really look at reviews for four purposes, I guess:
#1 - An informed, more-or-less professional word-of-mouth recommendation. I have friends whose opinion I trust, and there are reviewers whose opinion I trust. That helps me make purchase decisions.
#2 - Discussion of a game I'm already familiar with. I guess I'm in the fanboy camp in this one, a little. I like talking about games. I like to listen to other people talk about games I have played, compare their opinions to my own, and get different perspectives.
#3 - To be informed about the state of the market - what games are out there, what they are like, what features they sport, and so forth. I can't play them all, so I rely on reviewers to help me know what I'm missing (and to let me know if there's anything I shouldn't be missing).
#4 - Entertainment value. A lot of CGW's reviews back in the old days (early / mid 90's for me) were like this. Just well-written reviewers sharing their thoughts and insights on games. It was fun to read just for the sake of reading.
Too many reviews (especially on the Internet, but print is hardly blameless) don't fulfill any of these needs very well. Maybe I'm just jaded and crochety, but I'm wondering why not.
In the case of #1 - it's hard to get to know and trust individual reviewers these days. The market's too crowded, and any 13-year-old fanboy can spout off crap which gets the same real-estate on the Internet as Kieron Gillen's best work.
For #2 and #4, the discussions are often far too shallow, in spite of sometimes being more wordy.
I guess #3 is still there, and so the reviews still fulfill that purpose.
I'm thinking blogs and forums are pretty much taking over the place of reviews. Both in terms of information and opinions you can trust.
I see more and more posts on various sites (penny arcade, hardcore gaming, selectbutton to name a few) to the effect of "Hey, reviews suck - what do you guys on this particular forum think about game x? Because I tend to think the way you do."
Certainly reviews still have a place, and I have online sites I trust more than others, but online discussions are where it's at.
I see more and more posts on various sites (penny arcade, hardcore gaming, selectbutton to name a few) to the effect of "Hey, reviews suck - what do you guys on this particular forum think about game x? Because I tend to think the way you do."
Certainly reviews still have a place, and I have online sites I trust more than others, but online discussions are where it's at.
Yeah, its kind of a funny phenomenon, I no longer read reviews religiously, I just skip through them looking for bullet points which might indicate a type of game I like. Then I try to get ahold of a demo.
Reviewers these days seem to lack personality. I remeber loving Jeff Greens stuff in CGW, but online no reviewers (except maybe Fargo) seem to stand out.
Also, they all seem to be hype spewing fanboys. Rarely do you hear "We've seen this before, it's just shinier in this version" in reviews of big name titles.
The forum space connection is interesting as well. I see adverts for Two World with a quote from PC gamer saying something like "Finally, whats been missing in RPGs!". Then you go to a site like the Codex and read thats its a second class Oblivion with a ton of bugs and boring combat. Personally I trust the Codex more, most of the time
Reviewers these days seem to lack personality. I remeber loving Jeff Greens stuff in CGW, but online no reviewers (except maybe Fargo) seem to stand out.
Also, they all seem to be hype spewing fanboys. Rarely do you hear "We've seen this before, it's just shinier in this version" in reviews of big name titles.
The forum space connection is interesting as well. I see adverts for Two World with a quote from PC gamer saying something like "Finally, whats been missing in RPGs!". Then you go to a site like the Codex and read thats its a second class Oblivion with a ton of bugs and boring combat. Personally I trust the Codex more, most of the time
Funny - that sounds like my opinion of the Bioshock demo. Well, okay, shinier, with a fairly unique setting, and excellent implementation. Ya gotta give 'em credit for a job well done.
So is it the quality of journalism and reviews that is so lacking? I feel the Codex has its own bone to pick, so you have to put your bias-filter on.
Maybe, as you suggest, Alex, it has come to the point where word-of-mouth is more accessible with Internet communities, and the old role of the professional game reviewer is no longer needed. Particularly when so many of them are little more than hype-regurgitation vectors. Maybe we just need a better way to separate the wheat from the chaff. In general, most of the people who write for The Escapist are of such caliber that if they write a game review, I'll sit up and take notice.
But going to a gaming website these days to see what some semi-anonymous reviewer says? Semi-useless.
So is it the quality of journalism and reviews that is so lacking? I feel the Codex has its own bone to pick, so you have to put your bias-filter on.
Maybe, as you suggest, Alex, it has come to the point where word-of-mouth is more accessible with Internet communities, and the old role of the professional game reviewer is no longer needed. Particularly when so many of them are little more than hype-regurgitation vectors. Maybe we just need a better way to separate the wheat from the chaff. In general, most of the people who write for The Escapist are of such caliber that if they write a game review, I'll sit up and take notice.
But going to a gaming website these days to see what some semi-anonymous reviewer says? Semi-useless.
There's another model where reviews are useful. I buy virtually all of my console software used, and I wait to buy PC software until it's been out for a while and is discounted. If you are willing to wait that long, checking out reviews posted by people who've spent a fair amount of time with the game are a useful guide to what's worth picking up and what's not. I don't have a lot of $$ to spend on games, so every time I buy a dog of a title it really hurts. So far though, I've only purchased one stinker in the last 4 years.
# posted by 
: August 27, 2007 8:01 PM
: August 27, 2007 8:01 PM
Unfortunately, that strategy doesn't always pay off for me. I've been trying to get ahold of a copy of Wizardry 8 lately... and I think it costs more now than it did when it was new...
I buy most of my console games used, too. It's good to go back and see what reviewers REALLY thought of the game after all the initial hype has died down.
Post a Comment
I buy most of my console games used, too. It's good to go back and see what reviewers REALLY thought of the game after all the initial hype has died down.
Links to this post:
<< Home
