How much are game reviews influenced by expectations and popular opinions ?

[WCP]

I'm not sure I really trust game reviews.



It just seems like there is this "popular consensus" that develops when a game is getting close to release. I think the cross polination of one person's opinion, ends up influencing a bunch of other reviewers. It's like once a game gets tagged as an artistic darling, ( for example Journey on PSN ), it's going to automatically get the benefit of the doubt. Everybody is expecting it to have this profound meaning in it, and then their reviews of the game end up getting influenced by the expectations that this is one of the "good" games. I'm sure it happens in reverse as well. There are probably certain Dynasty Warriors games that are actually good, but they probably got shat on mostly due to the overall reputation of the franchise. I'm sure there are also super high profile games that deserve to get a 7.5 review, but somehow end up getting a 9.5 instead.


What made me think of this was the game Dishonored. I've heard it's got pretty good reviews, and I've never played it myself, so I don't really know if it's a decent game or not, but it just seems like a game that the gaming journalists would all kind of decide beforehand that this is one of the "good" games. Maybe it really is a damn good game, and worthy of any praise it gets, but there is also a legit possibility that the game is only adequate, but it's getting the benefit of the doubt from the gaming press in general, because they already had a built in expectation about it. It's just human nature I guess...

[Gameguy]

So you're just wondering about "popular consensus" and how much that influences reviewers, not so much about paid advertising or bribes from game companies towards the publishers or reviewers themselves.

[WCP]

So you're just wondering about "popular consensus" and how much that influences reviewers, not so much about paid advertising or bribes from game companies towards the publishers or reviewers themselves.

I'm sure that plays into it as welll

[Bubble_Man]

I have noticed that sequels from certain series tend to get consistently high scores, even when the quality of the games is not so consistent. I have found myself wondering if some of these reviewers were taking bribes -- or in some cases -- just didn't want to risk the popularity of their respective sites by angering rabbid fans.

[WCP]

didn't want to risk the popularity of their respective sites by angering rabbid fans.

I think this is a big problem when it comes to reviews of certain franchises. Resident Evil, Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Zelda, Mario, etc, etc. Some of the biggest franchises, with the most rabid fan bases, tend to get really pissed if their games don't get a 9.5 rating. I remember when there was a Zelda that somebody gave like an 8.0, and the fans went absolutely nuts because it didn't get 9.0 or higher.

[kupomogli]

Video game scores are practically useless now days. The system is so screwed up that unless all major review sites were to restructure the system, there's really nothing that can fix it. Most games that are released and reviewed don't get less than 6/10, meaning that every game released is worth purchasing. I hated the Resident Evil 6 demo and I was surprised it received scores as low as it did. Don't get me wrong, I would have gave it those scores, but I was surprised by current video game sites giving it ratings like that. The only person I'd expect to give ratings like that is Jim Sterling, who seems to be working on the true 1-10 review scale rather than the 6-10 review scale everyone else works on.

As for expectations. I think the main reason people still praise a game that happens to suck, such as Final Fantasy 13 or Resident Evil 6, is that they go out and purchase the game for $60 and it might not be as good as they expected, but no one wants to feel like they threw down $60 on a piece of shit game, so they try and force themselves to like it. A lot of these people also tend to be sheep that don't want to say they disliked the game just to get their friend's approval.

[Aussie2B]

Sure, expectations can color how someone will see a game, but they can just as well backfire. You can go into a game with high hopes only to be disappointed, or you can even have such high expectations that they can't possibly be met. On the flip side, you can expect a game to be bad or so-so and end up pleasantly surprised.

[The 1 2 P]

I also think that job security plays a part in it as well. We are all aware that certain reviewers have been fired for giving certain games low scores and while that practice may be taboo it isn't likely to have completely disappeared either. So sometimes the reviewers feel like they have no choice but to give a game worth a 3-5 a score of 7 or 8 so that they don't get fired. When Nintendo Power was still going do you really think a reviewer could have gave a Mario, Zelda or Smash Bros game a score of 5 or less and still had a job the next day?

[WCP]

The best place to get honest reviews is just via word of mouth. In forums like these, you might learn a person's tastes, and if they are raving about something, you figure that you'd probably like it as well. I think gaming podcasts are really good for getting the feel of various games, because it seems like the people are more honest when just talking about it. More free to express their opinions. Of course, pretty soon you won't be able to even trust the podcast discussions. That will be pretty sad..

[Gregger]

Yeah, you can't really go on review scores anymore. I'm not sure you ever could really. I noticed this the most when Skyrim was released. People were praising the game as the second coming before it was even out yet and the reviews obviously reflected expectations even though the game was very buggy on release.

[Rickstilwell1]

If I had to give an objective review on Sonic the Hedgehog '06 for the PS3, it's wouldn't have been that bad. I would have mentioned how some parts of the game were hard or frustrating, but I wouldn't have taken it to the extreme that many people did and say I hated the game. After all, I managed to beat it using Sonic within the month I bought it. I didn't care for Shadow or Silver's gameplay though. To me I was like "screw 'em. extra modes."

[duffmanth]

I take game reviews with a grain of salt. They're certainly a factor when I'm thinking of buying a game, but not the sole factor. Series like Metal Gear and GTA are always going to get high scores just because they're GTA and Metal Gear. I guess those series always deliver though, so they always get high scores.

[Andy]

What made me think of this was the game Dishonored. I've heard it's got pretty good reviews, and I've never played it myself, so I don't really know if it's a decent game or not, but it just seems like a game that the gaming journalists would all kind of decide beforehand that this is one of the "good" games. Maybe it really is a damn good game, and worthy of any praise it gets, but there is also a legit possibility that the game is only adequate, but it's getting the benefit of the doubt from the gaming press in general, because they already had a built in expectation about it. It's just human nature I guess...

I don't know, if anything it seems like Dishonored is getting good reviews in spite of prejudices. For a long time in its development people were running it down, claiming it's a ripoff of Bioshock and other recently popular games, and now that it's actually out they're taking it back. I've been looking forward to it because I like the games that the creators have done before, but they're not high-profile guys, especially to console players, which is why the game has been treated with suspicion, like a new kid at school who sat at the wrong lunch table.

That said, I don't pay much attention to game reviews anymore. If people whose opinions I trust are saying something is working looking at, that's enough for me. I've barely looked at major review sites in years.

[j_factor]

This isn't a new phenomenon.

[pacmanhat]

When I think of the business of game reviews, I can't help but think of what happened to Jeff Gerstmann after his Kane & Lynch review. There's a recent write-up of what happened here. Long story short - good reviews begets good advertising revenue or vice versa. Integrity is very, very optional.

[kedawa]

I read reviews, but I pay no attention to the mostly arbitrary 'scores' that reviewers assign to games.
There's no consistency or logic to them.
For example, yearly sports games and fighting game updates pretty much always get declining numerical scores even though they are better than their predecessors, and scores are often influenced by launch retail prices.

[j_factor]

scores are often influenced by launch retail prices.

I love it when I look up reviews on a game that's a few years old, and all the reviews are talking about the retail price. Whether it's bitching about how it "should have been a budget release" or praising it for its "value", either way it's stupid.