Game reviews are the "least important factor" to gamers when they consider what to buy next, a survey conducted by Cowen Group analyst Doug Creutz has concluded.
According to its data, word of mouth received a much higher score than critical aggregator rating to its survey participants when deciding to buy a game.
Thus, says the Cowen survey, video game companies' increasing focus on securing high review scores may be misplaced.
"We believe that while Metacritic scores may be correlated to game quality and word of mouth, and thus somewhat predictive of title performance, they are unlikely in and of themselves to drive or undermine the success of a game," the survey concludes.
"We note this, in part, because of persistent rumors that some game developers have been jawboning game reviewers into giving their games higher critical review scores. We believe the publishers are better served by spending their time on the development process than by grade-grubbing after the fact."
It's good to know that all our hard work delivering a number out of 100 makes a difference.
In spite of all the reviews that Alone in the Dark garnered, I still went out and bought it on 360. Although I did get a refund a week later upon completing it.
Earth Defence Force was another game that got bad reviews, but I still went out, bought it and loved it.
In spite of all the reviews that Alone in the Dark garnered, I still went out and bought it on 360. Although I did get a refund a week later upon completing it.
Why? Did they feel sorry for you?
If a game bombs in the review i won't buy it, simple as. Mind you Edge giving Bayonetta a 10 is going to come back and bite them on the a$$ i reckon. were they just itching to give something Japanese a 10? Gee them up a bit having been in the doldrums this gen?
so unimportant, publishers enforce embargo's - till the day its out, when a bad review wont matter. that and they try bribe reviewers/lavish them with exclusives if they give a certain mark.
i generally trusted reviews until i seen what MW2 got. that was disgusting.
so unimportant, publishers enforce embargo's - till the day its out, when a bad review wont matter. that and they try bribe reviewers/lavish them with exclusives if they give a certain mark.
i generally trusted reviews until i seen what MW2 got. that was disgusting.
I was actually going to come here and say the very same thing. It was NOT worth those scores.
So how does word of mouth work on launch day? If no one has played it then there is no one to spread the word.....
I must admit though that I pay little attention to review scores and far more to the review text as some games seem to be scored up or down for unknown reasons.
so unimportant, publishers enforce embargo's - till the day its out, when a bad review wont matter. that and they try bribe reviewers/lavish them with exclusives if they give a certain mark.
i generally trusted reviews until i seen what MW2 got. that was disgusting.
In spite of all the reviews that Alone in the Dark garnered, I still went out and bought it on 360. Although I did get a refund a week later upon completing it.
Why? Did they feel sorry for you?
Don't you feel sorry for me?
I bought it from Gamestation. The have a 10 day no quibble returns policy as long as you still have the receipt. Not sure if they still do now or not.
These people that they surveyed weren't 40+ Wii owning women were they, cause surely anyone with a decent interest in gaming reads some sort of review?
I'll use a selection of reviews as a guideline to get a wide opinion of a game but ultimately it really comes down to how i feel about the look and content of the game. It helps if you've agreed with the reviewer on past games as to wether or not you have similar game tastes. Plus reviews that highlight bad faults in games can save you from buying a few duds.
There's been a few 90%+ reviewed games that i just haven't been interested in because i've thought "it just isn't for me". Then again there's been quite a lot of sub 80% games that i've picked up and loved.
They aren't gospel and should only be used as a guide. Its someones personal opinion and that might differ from yours. The amount of people who seem to get defensive when someone doesn't give their favourite game a high score is beginning to become a joke though, same as those people who quote Metacritic.
So how does word of mouth work on launch day? If no one has played it then there is no one to spread the word.....
I must admit though that I pay little attention to review scores and far more to the review text as some games seem to be scored up or down for unknown reasons.
Same here - it's not always the overall quality of a game that's important to me (sure - nice visuals and sound will always enhance your enjoyment), it's more the design, structure and limitations of a game that interest me.
The other thing is that there is always way too much emphasis put on the final score - it's madness when people are quibbling in the forums about 1 or 2%....those MGS4 review forums still give me nightmares.
Word of mouth is much more important - you can get the opinions of many just by reading the odd forum. Games like Dead Space and Banjo Kazooie are good examples of titles that didn't necessarily get the review scores they deserved, yet seem to be loved by those that actually bothered to play them.
I'm not going to list all the dross that got execeptional reviews (you all know which games I mean anyway), but an example of a too high rating its Famitsu's score of 40/40 for New Super Mario Bros Wii. Sure, its a great game but not a patch on Super Mario Galaxy (which they'd given 38/40).
I don't generally even bother reading reviews anymore let alone trust them. Like some of have said, Modern Warfare 2 is a prime example of a highly overrated game. Yet on here and some other sites I've cared to trawl through, people have panned it. The reviewers from all those publications must have been paid off...
I'm not going to list all the dross that got execeptional reviews (you all know which games I mean anyway), but an example of a too high rating its Famitsu's score of 40/40 for New Super Mario Bros Wii. Sure, its a great game but not a patch on Super Mario Galaxy (which they'd given 38/40).
I don't generally even bother reading reviews anymore let alone trust them. Like some of have said, Modern Warfare 2 is a prime example of a highly overrated game. Yet on here and some other sites I've cared to trawl through, people have panned it. The reviewers from all those publications must have been paid off...
I would say that NSMB is as good as Galaxy. Also though I agree that MW2 is overrated, it is still an excellent game and I can't see why anyone would pan the console versions (although I can understand the gripes with the PC version).
I agree that MW2 is overrated, it is still an excellent game
Exactly, the amount of people who are lambasting it is crazy. What were they expecting, the second coming? Of course it was gonna be more of the same with a few new whistles and bells added on, but some people seemed to be expecting God to have had a hand in it.
I think the problem is that review scores sometimes vary wildly across the board so you never get a defined "yes I should buy this" or "no don't touch it".
Some places churn out 10/10 scores for every piece of crap that comes along, others actually put in the effort to review it properly and compare it to other games in the series or similar in the genre.
Then you've got random reviewers inside each organisation who don't agree with each other. One will say one thing, the other says something different. Which one do you believe?
I've always found the CVG reviews (before that PC Zone, before that NMS and before that YS) tend to agree with my own opinions. I assume the teams on these mags are around my age so I trust them fairly well.
so unimportant, publishers enforce embargo's - till the day its out, when a bad review wont matter. that and they try bribe reviewers/lavish them with exclusives if they give a certain mark.
i generally trusted reviews until i seen what MW2 got. that was disgusting.
what did it get?
'universal acclaim'
94/100 across the board - the average on metacritic - which lists all major reviews.
the worst was EDGE. they talked it down so much in their review, then turned round and gave it a 9.
a 9 from pretentious publication which holds up innovation as its most important factor. it was like the editor forced the score on it, but the reviewer could say what he wanted.
i feel activision pressurised reviewers somehow, cause i love MW1, but that was the worst sequel ever. it was god awful. mindless garbage. the original outclasses it in every aspect.
i heard publishers badgered reviewers over the scores of batman and assassins creed 2.
and i dont know what these embargo's are about. reviews are supposed to be for the consumer!!
the review should be done and dusted before launch day, yet the publishers have you signing a disclaimer. wheres the fair play?!
so unimportant, publishers enforce embargo's - till the day its out, when a bad review wont matter. that and they try bribe reviewers/lavish them with exclusives if they give a certain mark.
i generally trusted reviews until i seen what MW2 got. that was disgusting.
what did it get?
'universal acclaim'
94/100 across the board - the average on metacritic - which lists all major reviews.
the worst was EDGE. they talked it down so much in their review, then turned round and gave it a 9.
a 9 from pretentious publication which holds up innovation as its most important factor. it was like the editor forced the score on it, but the reviewer could say what he wanted.
i feel activision pressurised reviewers somehow, cause i love MW1, but that was the worst sequel ever. it was god awful. mindless garbage. the original outclasses it in every aspect.
i heard publishers badgered reviewers over the scores of batman and assassins creed 2.
and i dont know what these embargo's are about. reviews are supposed to be for the consumer!!
the review should be done and dusted before launch day, yet the publishers have you signing a disclaimer. wheres the fair play?!
I agree that the scores are a little high for it. However I am not sure why you think it is the worst sequel ever made and god awful as I think it is certainly better then the first one (although admittedly does not exactly innovate), for a start they have reduced the most annoying feature of a game ever created to a mere deathstreak (yes I am talking to you martyrdom perk! although the shields are quite annoying) So you think Turok Evolution was a better sequel than this?
Are you comparing PC versions or Console versions as I can understand your point if it is the PC version?
martyrdom perk was cheesy, but after a few times you learn to stay clear of downed bodies. with deathstreak - now it rewards being crap, instead of punishing you. thats not progress.
the single player was concocted around individual hollywood blockbuster scenes, stitched together with the worst story known to man.
The biggest problem, and I have already said this numerous times before so I will have to say it again.
Some people, some of them in this forum, seem to think that reviews (and the scores that come with them) are something more than just complete opinion.
Some people think that Edge or whoever else need to take other peoples opinions into account when scoring a game, how they would do this is a complete mystery, and not just judge it on what they think.
If Edge want to give a game 10/10 then fine, the person that reviewed it must have thought it was great game. At then end of the day it is just his opinion...
martyrdom perk was cheesy, but after a few times you learn to stay clear of downed bodies. with deathstreak - now it rewards being crap, instead of punishing you. thats not progress.
the single player was concocted around individual hollywood blockbuster scenes and stitched together with the worst story known to man.
its more linear than virtua cop.
The first game was just as linear. In fact they have been linear since the first PC version. Halo is Linear, Resistance is linear, in fact I am finding it hard to think of one single player FPS that is not linear....
I feel the deathstreaks are less of a reward for being crap and more of a helping hand to make the game a little more accessible to those that struggle in FPS games. That is not a bad thing at all. In fact COD has always seemed to make it very difficult in this respect as the best players get the best weapons which makes the gap even bigger between those that are great at it and those that are not.
"Game reviews are the "least important factor" to gamers when they consider what to buy next"
this is because most reviewers are moronic idiots and most mags are payed off (that how it seems anyway).
I read a few mags but only trust the mighty PSM3. Its very rare i will buy a game if they slate it ad will always put alot of consideration into buyin one if they give it a BUY IT NOW. The rest i just read for fun
The biggest problem, and I have already said this numerous times before so I will have to say it again.
Some people, some of them in this forum, seem to think that reviews (and the scores that come with them) are something more than just complete opinion.
Some people think that Edge or whoever else need to take other peoples opinions into account when scoring a game, how they would do this is a complete mystery, and not just judge it on what they think.
If Edge want to give a game 10/10 then fine, the person that reviewed it must have thought it was great game. At then end of the day it is just his opinion...
You wont fit in round here with logic and sound reasoning like that Shabozi , its all about the conspiracies and how no Gaming Site or Press is to be trusted. I though everyone knew that ?
Review scores are not important to me if the game is one I really want to play then I will get it, simple. I don't feel the need to verbally abuse reviewers if they score my chosen game lower than I would like or what other sites review it at.
As pointed out by Irongut loads of decent games (Okami, Pyschonauts etc) get good reviews but people just don't buy them (more fool them in some cases).
Either way reviews are usually the opinion of one person, me I usually like to make my own mind up.
martyrdom perk was cheesy, but after a few times you learn to stay clear of downed bodies. with deathstreak - now it rewards being crap, instead of punishing you. thats not progress.
the single player was concocted around individual hollywood blockbuster scenes and stitched together with the worst story known to man.
its more linear than virtua cop.
The first game was just as linear. In fact they have been linear since the first PC version. Halo is Linear, Resistance is linear, in fact I am finding it hard to think of one single player FPS that is not linear....
I feel the deathstreaks are less of a reward for being crap and more of a helping hand to make the game a little more accessible to those that struggle in FPS games. That is not a bad thing at all. In fact COD has always seemed to make it very difficult in this respect as the best players get the best weapons which makes the gap even bigger between those that are great at it and those that are not.
it reward crapness!!! call it accessibility if you want. it isnt going to make you a better player, just pads your ego. it makes you a worse player if anything.
you shouldnt be under any illusions. strictness perfects peoples routines.
and MW2 was way more linear than the original. getting saddled on a snow mobile that only goes one way. endless prompts, only for the game to halt and restart if you didnt comply. you feel its invisible hand funnelling you through the set peices just so it can spring predictable scripted situations on you. all of them you seen coming a mile off.
Review scores don't really mean anything. I mean you often get 5-10 games every winter that score 90+ doesn't really help you decide which one to buy. Factor in things like certain sites that review higher than others like IGN, those that review lower, Edge, Eurogamer. And they may as well drop scores all together as it means little at the end of the day.
All that little number does is send nerds into rage mode.
so unimportant, publishers enforce embargo's - till the day its out, when a bad review wont matter. that and they try bribe reviewers/lavish them with exclusives if they give a certain mark.
i generally trusted reviews until i seen what MW2 got. that was disgusting.
I was actually going to come here and say the very same thing. It was NOT worth those scores.
hardly anything is worth the score given to it nowadays but what can you do? make our own reviews is one but it's gonna be read by only a staggeringly high 2 people, if lucky.
a score doesnt really affect me in any way as I at least like to try out a game + reviewers gave my glorious Black a 6 so screw them!
I wasn't interested in Assassin's Creed II in the least, but I loked at its METACRITIC score, read a couple of reviews, and then I purchased it. Same goes for Uncharted II. I may say that I don't follow word-of-mouth at all! As far as games are concerned (and in my case music, movies, and literature as well) I AM THE WORD OF MOUTH. Yes, I said it.
You wont fit in round here with logic and sound reasoning like that Shabozi , its all about the conspiracies and how no Gaming Site or Press is to be trusted. I though everyone knew that ?
It'll be interesting to see your reaction if Alan Wake bombs.
Have to say i usually go by review scores, but has been mentioned, they are only opinions. There have been many a highlyscored game that i didn't really get into, LBP being just one. 97% in PSM3? Im trying to think of a game that i have bought recently through word of mouth and i can't really think of one to be honest, but then i do have friends who ask me what games that they might be interested in. I guess if you know your stuff then word of mouth really isnt going to affect your buying habits.
Earth Defence Force was another game that got bad reviews, but I still went out, bought it and loved it.
Eat Lead: The Return Of Matt Hazard was the same. So much criticism and low review scores but I played it anyway and loved it. And so have so many other people as far as I'm aware.
It's even one of Play.com's top sellers according to the extra information on my AC2 receipt
martyrdom perk was cheesy, but after a few times you learn to stay clear of downed bodies. with deathstreak - now it rewards being crap, instead of punishing you. thats not progress.
the single player was concocted around individual hollywood blockbuster scenes and stitched together with the worst story known to man.
its more linear than virtua cop.
The first game was just as linear. In fact they have been linear since the first PC version. Halo is Linear, Resistance is linear, in fact I am finding it hard to think of one single player FPS that is not linear....
That's true, but even for an FPS it was VERY linear. It may as well have been on rails for a lot of it there was so little freedom.
Actually, I'm convinced it would have been a better game if was designed as an on-rails shooter.
hardly anything is worth the score given to it nowadays but what can you do? make our own reviews is one but it's gonna be read by only a staggeringly high 2 people, if lucky.
a score doesnt really affect me in any way as I at least like to try out a game + reviewers gave my glorious Black a 6 so screw them!
I'd love to see some reviews by certain people on here:
is brilliant really shows off the powah of da PS3 (is geh on 360 - M$lol) I loaded it up and I was straight away all like 'bukkkabukkkabukkabukkka lolfagz' then me nad my matez are all like 'you cant do dat - dat is cheatin' and they were all like 'rofl youz noobz' so we did them and they were all teabagged and stuff innit. 10/10
These people that they surveyed weren't 40+ Wii owning women were they, cause surely anyone with a decent interest in gaming reads some sort of review?
I'll use a selection of reviews as a guideline to get a wide opinion of a game but ultimately it really comes down to how i feel about the look and content of the game. It helps if you've agreed with the reviewer on past games as to wether or not you have similar game tastes. Plus reviews that highlight bad faults in games can save you from buying a few duds.
There's been a few 90%+ reviewed games that i just haven't been interested in because i've thought "it just isn't for me". Then again there's been quite a lot of sub 80% games that i've picked up and loved.
They aren't gospel and should only be used as a guide. Its someones personal opinion and that might differ from yours. The amount of people who seem to get defensive when someone doesn't give their favourite game a high score is beginning to become a joke though, same as those people who quote Metacritic.
This.
I often read numerous reviews of a game that I think I might like - both official and customer reviews. Then I contemplate just how much or little the game appeals to me on surface value (i.e. theme and looks), compare it to other similar games at the time and/or other games that I'm also interested in and then I compare all of those factors to how much of my budget I'm prepared to spend at that point in time.
I think it bears worth mentioning that for some of the older gamers there may not be quite as many friends and associates to receive word of mouth gaming news from since that gaming generation was smaller. This will likely be an increasingly smaller issue for younger gaming generations given the growth of the gaming market.
So I review games, if I don't want to have to buy those games to review and want publishers to send them to me for review I have to keep the publishers on side.
To do that I need to give crap games average scores, average games good scores, good games great scores and great games perfect scores.
And thus games that should get bad scores don't.
The other point is that mummy will not read reviews before buying billy that game that everyone is playing at school and he simply has to have.
so unimportant, publishers enforce embargo's - till the day its out, when a bad review wont matter. that and they try bribe reviewers/lavish them with exclusives if they give a certain mark.
i generally trusted reviews until i seen what MW2 got. that was disgusting.
what did it get?
'universal acclaim'
94/100 across the board - the average on metacritic - which lists all major reviews.
the worst was EDGE. they talked it down so much in their review, then turned round and gave it a 9.
a 9 from pretentious publication which holds up innovation as its most important factor. it was like the editor forced the score on it, but the reviewer could say what he wanted.
i feel activision pressurised reviewers somehow, cause i love MW1, but that was the worst sequel ever. it was god awful. mindless garbage. the original outclasses it in every aspect.
i heard publishers badgered reviewers over the scores of batman and assassins creed 2.
and i dont know what these embargo's are about. reviews are supposed to be for the consumer!!
the review should be done and dusted before launch day, yet the publishers have you signing a disclaimer. wheres the fair play?!
Where it concerns Metacritic I will usually read one of the best scores and one of the worst scores, if not multiple ones from both ends. I also like reading private customers' reviews on websites such as Amazon (though the quality varies wildly). As mentioned in another thread there was a level headed review from an Australian site on Metacritic that gave it 50/100.
The biggest problem, and I have already said this numerous times before so I will have to say it again.
Some people, some of them in this forum, seem to think that reviews (and the scores that come with them) are something more than just complete opinion.
Some people think that Edge or whoever else need to take other peoples opinions into account when scoring a game, how they would do this is a complete mystery, and not just judge it on what they think.
If Edge want to give a game 10/10 then fine, the person that reviewed it must have thought it was great game. At then end of the day it is just his opinion...
Fair point, although that same reviewer ought to consider with care how easily, or not, he/she throws around both acclaim and criticism. If it is done too often without a sound case to back up the decision it can lead to the precise thing that some posters on this thread have expressed: a loss of faith in that reviewer's (and thus possibly the publication's,) reputation. A critic with a poor reputation isn't likely to go far in his/her chosen field.
hardly anything is worth the score given to it nowadays but what can you do? make our own reviews is one but it's gonna be read by only a staggeringly high 2 people, if lucky.
a score doesnt really affect me in any way as I at least like to try out a game + reviewers gave my glorious Black a 6 so screw them!
I'd love to see some reviews by certain people on here:
is brilliant really shows off the powah of da PS3 (is geh on 360 - M$lol) I loaded it up and I was straight away all like 'bukkkabukkkabukkabukkka lolfagz' then me nad my matez are all like 'you cant do dat - dat is cheatin' and they were all like 'rofl youz noobz' so we did them and they were all teabagged and stuff innit. 10/10
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
.
?
