By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales - Game reviews need to mature more. They are getting less and less relevant.

The_vagabond7 on 25 November 2010

Regardless of whether or not you like how reviews are done, saying they are less and less relevant is flat out incorrect. Developers have openly said time and time again Metacritic scores are openly discussed as to whether or not a game gets a sequel, is important for future funding for teams or sequels, marketing budgets, ect. Reviews are incredibly relevant as far as publishers go.

 

Furthermore, gamers get the reviewers they deserve. If a game gets a 7.5 instead of an 8 fanboys go completely batshit nuts, ridicule the reviewers personally, critisize their intelligence or integrity, but few complain if a big game gets a 9 or 9.5 because that's what the gaming community expects and wants. Score inflation is a result of fan expectation and reaction. Websites and magazines are a for profit enterprise and need fans in order to function, thus meeting the expectations of gamers is the aim. Gamers complain if scores are too low and question the validity of the website or publication (how many people say "you can't spell ignorant without IGN" whenever their game of choice does not get the expected score even if the game isn't out yet?), but if preconcieved notions are met then review scores are posted everywhere with links to the website or article. So don't blame the reviewing culture, blame the gaming culture that demands they meet their preconcieved notions of how good a game should be.



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

Around the Network
Grimes on 25 November 2010

The irony is that many of the people who are complaining about the reviews are making the same mistakes as they claim the reviewers are.



Anyone can guess. It takes no effort to throw out lots of predictions and have some of them be correct. You are not and wiser or better for having your guesses be right. Even a blind man can hit the bullseye.

bugrimmar on 25 November 2010

well we don't claim to be professionals. they do. if they want to be called professionals, they should start acting like they are.



Galaki on 25 November 2010

I want to see a review system rated by how much the game is worth in dollars.

That way, I could tell if I got ripped off :)



Pre-order limited edition Blue Slime Condoms

sad.man.loves.vgc on 26 November 2010
rocketpig said:
sad.man.loves.vgc said:
rocketpig said:

Reviewers suck. I think I've said everything I need to say beyond that in the two editorials on reviews I've written for this site.


link please? I like your posts mostly. It should be an interesting read.

Part one from 2008:
http://gamrfeed.vgchartz.com/story/1124/this-one-goes-to-eleven-the-review-system-is-broken-amp-gta-proves-it/

The followup in 2010:
http://gamrfeed.vgchartz.com/story/7514/when-it-comes-to-review-scores-gamers-are-part-of-the-problem/


awesome! Thanks



Around the Network
bugrimmar on 27 November 2010

indeed, those are awesome links. funny how i never read them before...



Chibi.V.29 on 27 November 2010

I think they need to make reviews harsher back in the day if a game got a 10/10 it was basically a piece of absalte 100% brilliance that you will never forgot. These days thats not the case. Look at halo reach. ign gave it a 10/10. Im not saying its a bad game. far from that its an amazing game but its not something that your gona play and go OMG i never need to bye another game again. Th only game in the last 5 years i think has realy disrved a 10/10 was mgs4. Thatsjust my opinion but as far as i can tell no other game has come close to being able to compared to games like half life, origonal mario etc



Yeah i know my spelling sucks but im dysgraphic so live with it :3    

---------------------------------------------------Bets--------------------------------------------------

Conegamer - I say that the PS3 will beat the DS next week in Japan  (for hardware sales) Forfeit is control over others avatar for 1 week.

OntheEdgeofthemirror on 27 November 2010
The_vagabond7 said:

Regardless of whether or not you like how reviews are done, saying they are less and less relevant is flat out incorrect. Developers have openly said time and time again Metacritic scores are openly discussed as to whether or not a game gets a sequel, is important for future funding for teams or sequels, marketing budgets, ect. Reviews are incredibly relevant as far as publishers go.

 

Furthermore, gamers get the reviewers they deserve. If a game gets a 7.5 instead of an 8 fanboys go completely batshit nuts, ridicule the reviewers personally, critisize their intelligence or integrity, but few complain if a big game gets a 9 or 9.5 because that's what the gaming community expects and wants. Score inflation is a result of fan expectation and reaction. Websites and magazines are a for profit enterprise and need fans in order to function, thus meeting the expectations of gamers is the aim. Gamers complain if scores are too low and question the validity of the website or publication (how many people say "you can't spell ignorant without IGN" whenever their game of choice does not get the expected score even if the game isn't out yet?), but if preconcieved notions are met then review scores are posted everywhere with links to the website or article. So don't blame the reviewing culture, blame the gaming culture that demands they meet their preconcieved notions of how good a game should be.

You obviously haven't read a review from IGN lately, they leave out whole aspects of the game and sometimes don't even get the controls right (the fight for move) and give it a low score because they weren't able to play it, also popular games get about 2 more points then they would if they weren't as hyped just for being hyped, and they ignore flaws in several games that are popular to justify the score, of course metacritic is important to developers thats the publics perception, the thing is that number is based on reviewers that are completely inaccurate and skewed every which way, most of them don't even mention why a game is good or bad, and alot of the reviews often knock a less popular game for one thing then praise a more hyped game for it, so yes reviews need to mature, they suck so much and most people are too stupid to realize it, popular genres get higher scores then less popular ones, even if the less popular one is the better game for the genre, reviews lately are so horrible, take IGN fable review they didn't even mention the combat isn't that a big part of the game? honestly player reviewers are way better then "professional" ones and people need to realize just how bad the reviews their basing their purchase on are 



The_vagabond7 on 27 November 2010
OntheEdgeofthemirror said:
The_vagabond7 said:

Regardless of whether or not you like how reviews are done, saying they are less and less relevant is flat out incorrect. Developers have openly said time and time again Metacritic scores are openly discussed as to whether or not a game gets a sequel, is important for future funding for teams or sequels, marketing budgets, ect. Reviews are incredibly relevant as far as publishers go.

 

Furthermore, gamers get the reviewers they deserve. If a game gets a 7.5 instead of an 8 fanboys go completely batshit nuts, ridicule the reviewers personally, critisize their intelligence or integrity, but few complain if a big game gets a 9 or 9.5 because that's what the gaming community expects and wants. Score inflation is a result of fan expectation and reaction. Websites and magazines are a for profit enterprise and need fans in order to function, thus meeting the expectations of gamers is the aim. Gamers complain if scores are too low and question the validity of the website or publication (how many people say "you can't spell ignorant without IGN" whenever their game of choice does not get the expected score even if the game isn't out yet?), but if preconcieved notions are met then review scores are posted everywhere with links to the website or article. So don't blame the reviewing culture, blame the gaming culture that demands they meet their preconcieved notions of how good a game should be.

You obviously haven't read a review from IGN lately, they leave out whole aspects of the game and sometimes don't even get the controls right (the fight for move) and give it a low score because they weren't able to play it, also popular games get about 2 more points then they would if they weren't as hyped just for being hyped, and they ignore flaws in several games that are popular to justify the score, of course metacritic is important to developers thats the publics perception, the thing is that number is based on reviewers that are completely inaccurate and skewed every which way, most of them don't even mention why a game is good or bad, and alot of the reviews often knock a less popular game for one thing then praise a more hyped game for it, so yes reviews need to mature, they suck so much and most people are too stupid to realize it, popular genres get higher scores then less popular ones, even if the less popular one is the better game for the genre, reviews lately are so horrible, take IGN fable review they didn't even mention the combat isn't that a big part of the game? honestly player reviewers are way better then "professional" ones and people need to realize just how bad the reviews their basing their purchase on are 


It's like you didn't read anything I just said, took it as a blanket defense of review sites and publications and then ranted about how bad IGN is. I'm going to go back to talking about economics with Kasz....

But first, Go to gamefaqs and tell me how great player reviews are, and if score inflation (and deflation) exists with player reviews. Don't romantasize something else because you don't like the status quo.



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

OntheEdgeofthemirror on 27 November 2010
The_vagabond7 said:
OntheEdgeofthemirror said:
The_vagabond7 said:

Regardless of whether or not you like how reviews are done, saying they are less and less relevant is flat out incorrect. Developers have openly said time and time again Metacritic scores are openly discussed as to whether or not a game gets a sequel, is important for future funding for teams or sequels, marketing budgets, ect. Reviews are incredibly relevant as far as publishers go.

 

Furthermore, gamers get the reviewers they deserve. If a game gets a 7.5 instead of an 8 fanboys go completely batshit nuts, ridicule the reviewers personally, critisize their intelligence or integrity, but few complain if a big game gets a 9 or 9.5 because that's what the gaming community expects and wants. Score inflation is a result of fan expectation and reaction. Websites and magazines are a for profit enterprise and need fans in order to function, thus meeting the expectations of gamers is the aim. Gamers complain if scores are too low and question the validity of the website or publication (how many people say "you can't spell ignorant without IGN" whenever their game of choice does not get the expected score even if the game isn't out yet?), but if preconcieved notions are met then review scores are posted everywhere with links to the website or article. So don't blame the reviewing culture, blame the gaming culture that demands they meet their preconcieved notions of how good a game should be.

You obviously haven't read a review from IGN lately, they leave out whole aspects of the game and sometimes don't even get the controls right (the fight for move) and give it a low score because they weren't able to play it, also popular games get about 2 more points then they would if they weren't as hyped just for being hyped, and they ignore flaws in several games that are popular to justify the score, of course metacritic is important to developers thats the publics perception, the thing is that number is based on reviewers that are completely inaccurate and skewed every which way, most of them don't even mention why a game is good or bad, and alot of the reviews often knock a less popular game for one thing then praise a more hyped game for it, so yes reviews need to mature, they suck so much and most people are too stupid to realize it, popular genres get higher scores then less popular ones, even if the less popular one is the better game for the genre, reviews lately are so horrible, take IGN fable review they didn't even mention the combat isn't that a big part of the game? honestly player reviewers are way better then "professional" ones and people need to realize just how bad the reviews their basing their purchase on are 


It's like you didn't read anything I just said, took it as a blanket defense of review sites and publications and then ranted about how bad IGN is. I'm going to go back to talking about economics with Kasz....

But first, Go to gamefaqs and tell me how great player reviews are, and if score inflation (and deflation) exists with player reviews. Don't romantasize something else because you don't like the status quo.

Again I'm referring to the context of the text more then the score itself, but even the scores are better, take fable 3 the average of all the reviews (on gamefaqs) is 6.6 compared to an 80 on metacritic, see my point about popular games getting 2 extra points on official websites just because of hype