| reask said: @ twesterm Not so sure on your theory about hyped games getting better reviews. Would that not mean games like uncharted and gears are never going to get fair reviews because of hype? I use these games as examples only. My point been that the Halos and COD,s of this world are built on more than hype and in fact have more to live up to because of that? I mean the general consensus was prior to the release of ODST was 7 to 8 reviews. I seem to remember certain members willing to eat crow if scores were high. Just my take on it. |
I think, speaking for Twes for a moment because I think reading his comments we see it the same way, that hype and a known brand will likely see slightly better reviews provided the game isn't bad.
The reason is that with a known brand, Halo, CoD, etc. the reviewer's job is both easier and the game is such as known quantity - they will therefore tend to review vs the brand's standards. For example, Halo on console is just seen as great, 9 out of 10, by the majority of reviewers. ODST comes along and the review is more of a checklist vs previous titles - short, tight campaign with memorable moments, check, good level design with a few terrible ones that no one can fathom, check, great MP, check, Halo specific 'feel' for the combat, check, good AI, check... I mean, I could have told you before ODST released that it would have great combat in Halo tradition, good set-pieces, strong MP, etc. mainly because it was obvious that in the main it was going to stick to a very know, tried and trusted formula that I know very well.
The end result is therefore going to be another 9 out of 10 for many reviwers.
A hyped new ip faces a different struggle - the one you're referring to I believe, where it needs to be really good or it will probably be marked slightly down for failing to meet expectations. In those cases the hyped title does have more to live up to, and if it's new it doesn't have an established level in the reviewers head - 'this should probably be a 9/10 title' for example. If the new ip is taking risks in terms of established gameplay mechanics, etc. then it's chances of coming a cropper are even higher.
Now, thinking on this further, some sites will mark down the big brand for this reason (but only a few) - giving something like ODST 8s and 7s and saying it's not different enough, etc. Some I think will be doing so fairly, others just to grab some attention.
I think that it's probable that Edge has simply done this more with PS3 titles than 360 so far - prpobably just down to each reviewer's feel and approach. So whoever scored MGS4 (as an example) was looking for more changes to the formula than they got, and less of other changes, such as the huge cutscenes, whereas whoever reviewed ODST was looking for the Halo checklist and got it on a silver plate.
What the figures on Edge reviews show, I think, is that their approach to titles has been somewhat inconsistent, and that this has happened to fall acorss the two platforms, PS3 and 360. I don't believe they deliberately 'mark down' PS3 titles nor mark up 360 titles, but the evidence of their variation vs other review averages indicates to me that their PS3 reviewer is using a slightly different critera vs their 360 reviewer, which is producing results more at odds with the average.
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...
