Why do gamers have such a fascination with review scores?

Unickuta

Unickuta

CAGiversary!
Feedback
15 (100%)
Before I continue on, I know that the people here are, mostly, not like the people I'm talking about- they're kind of above it (or just focused on the price). Try looking on the GameSpot forums to see what I'm talking about.

Well, anyways, why does the average, message-board frequenting gamer care so much about review scores, best games ever, game comparisons, etc? I myself am victim to this sometimes, but I don't understand why so many people care so much about these things.

I honestly don't know why.
 
It's not "gamers" who have an obsession with them. It's fanboys. They need the to validate their console of choice, publishers of choice, game franchise of choice etc. I guess there's some more innocuous excitement over them. Validation for months of excitement leading up to a release etc. But for the most part the people making a big deal out of the--especially on other forums--are just fanboys who use them for ammunition in their petty flame wars.

To a gamer, they're just a tool to help weed out what to play in this age when there are many more good games than most of us ever have time to check out. Much less if we had to weed through all games rather than just a sub-set of highly reviewed games.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
To a gamer, they're just a tool to help weed out what to play in this age when there are many more good games than most of us ever have time to check out. Much less if we had to weed through all games rather than just a sub-set of highly reviewed games.[/QUOTE]

Except so many reviews are simply off... niche titles get rated like shit because reviewers clearly don't understand them (look at any shmup review), and there are plenty of titles that get overrated marks simply because of hype. And how can you trust people like IGN, that made Iron Man sound like the best game ever in previews, and then gave it shitty marks in the review for all the things they said were good in the preview!

It's just easier to play what you think looks good, and not rely on other peoples opinions... opinions that are formed because they are rushing through a game to meet a deadline and nitpicking it to high hell because they have to.

I can't tell you the number of games I've played that were supposedly 7's, but actually pretty dcent.
 
Of course reviews are only part of the puzzle. I dont' really give a crap about niche titles anymore. I'm sure there are plenty I'd like, but I can't even find time to play all the AAA blockbusters so I don't have the interest in searching for niche gems like I used to--not that I was ever big into them.

As for previews, they've always been useless. They have to talk up games to get early builds to preview, so you can't go into them looking for objectivity. They're usefull for screen shots, some info on the gameplay type etc. But definitely not useful for quality assesments.
 
I could care less, see here.


Who gives a fuck? I could care fucking less what game is considered "the best ever" on a website. If I like a game, and I think it's the best game ever that is all that fucking matters. I don't let people/websites/ect try to tell me what game is "great" or "teh best game ever" I form my own opinion on games. In the end your opinion is the only one that matters, because it's your money that you're spending, and you're the only one playing the game.
Click to expand...
 
I feel like if I'm spending more time on message boards posting about games and arguing over which game is better than I am actually playing and enjoying those games, then I have failed as a gamer.

And with that, I'm off to go frag some doodz.
 
[quote name='Roufuss']And how can you trust people like IGN, that made Iron Man sound like the best game ever in previews, and then gave it shitty marks in the review for all the things they said were good in the preview![/quote]

I think this cognitive dissonance -- which the gaming publications themselves create -- is responsible for a lot of the more extreme reactions to reviews.

It's hard not to be taken in by previews, even if you know better, because they tend to promise the things you really want to believe. The people who write the previews tend to be reviewers, too, adding an air of legitimacy.

Even factoring out pure hype and factoring in some believable problems (rushed to market, bugs, ideas that just didn't come together), oftentimes the preview and the review look like they were written by completely different entities, even though they're both by the same publication with the same staff.

Is it any wonder that people act in a bunch of weird ways when trying to deal with a review that contradicts what the same publication has been saying for months?
 
Reviews have become more of an advertisement, than just a review of the game. But in the past they could save you a couple of dollars. I guess they still can, and they can sometimes get you to miss out on a couple of games if you take them too serious. I like metacritic, where you can look a multiple reviews.
 
Gaming is a very personal activity. It's all based on personal preference. Fanboys don't have that freedom; they have to play what [insert giant multinational corporation here] tells them to. They're jealous that the rest of us have freedom to choose a different platform/game from theirs.
 
[quote name='Roufuss']Except so many reviews are simply off... niche titles get rated like shit because reviewers clearly don't understand them (look at any shmup review), and there are plenty of titles that get overrated marks simply because of hype. And how can you trust people like IGN, that made Iron Man sound like the best game ever in previews, and then gave it shitty marks in the review for all the things they said were good in the preview!

It's just easier to play what you think looks good, and not rely on other peoples opinions... opinions that are formed because they are rushing through a game to meet a deadline and nitpicking it to high hell because they have to.

I can't tell you the number of games I've played that were supposedly 7's, but actually pretty dcent.[/QUOTE]
Exactly how I feel.
 
i like EGM review scores to help guide me in the direction of a possible great game, some games depending on the series, i could care less what reviews say. But usually a bad reviews from multiple sources may help me decide whether i'm going to throw down the $$$. If i had gamefly it would be different.
 
[quote name='Roufuss']I can't tell you the number of games I've played that were supposedly 7's, but actually pretty dcent.[/quote]
Well, 7 is a good score, so that shouldn't be a surprise to you.

Gamers, not referring to you, need to work on readjusting their internal review scales to be able to find enjoyment in games outside of the 8-10 score range.
 
before there were reviews.. I used to go to the store and just picked up a game that sounded interesting. Also, there were some game developers that were just known to be pretty good. Konami always had a good reputation.

I picked up Dark Sector before I read any reviews, and I ended up loving the game, same for Assassin's creed, just used my own decision making and I ended up happy on both accounts. I know what I'm looking for in a game. I don't necessarily NEED review scores. There're good to have and read, but sometimes its just best to make your own decision (before you read the review).
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']
Gamers, not referring to you, need to work on readjusting their internal review scales to be able to find enjoyment in games outside of the 8-10 score range.[/QUOTE]

Doing the opposite has helped reinvigorate my interest in gaming. I stick with playing and finishing games only in the 8-10 personal score range (and really try to do 9-10 as much as possible).

I just don't have/not willing to make all that much time for gaming these days, and I'm getting a lot more enjoyment playing the cream of the crop. It keeps me from having a backlog weighing down on me and causing gaming to feel like a chore and my interest stays more piqued when I'm playing all games I love rather than games that are just good or mediocre.

Even if I had more time, I don't think I'd need to revise my standards downward as I can't even come close to playing all the AAA games that interest me on the 360--much less if I had reason to own multiple consoles this gen.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Doing the opposite has helped reinvigorate my interest in gaming. I stick with playing and finishing games only in the 8-10 personal score range (and really try to do 9-10 as much as possible).

I just don't have/not willing to make all that much time for gaming these days, and I'm getting a lot more enjoyment playing the cream of the crop. It keeps me from having a backlog weighing down on me and causing gaming to feel like a chore and my interest stays more piqued when I'm playing all games I love rather than games that are just good or mediocre.

Even if I had more time, I don't think I'd need to revise my standards downward as I can't even come close to playing all the AAA games that interest me on the 360--much less if I had reason to own multiple consoles this gen.[/quote]
++

I have always made extensive use of review sites when choosing games. I've got a stack of PS2 games two feet tall, and every single one of them is a good (or at least a decent) game. I didn't like every last one of them, but none of them are bad.

It pains me every time I see an eBay/Craigslist/whatever posting with someone selling a console and they include one good game and maybe 3-5 really, really terrible games that they clearly picked up from the bargain bin at Wal Mart. Ooh, so you have Halo 3, paintball, BMX biking, and a game based on the latest summer blockbuster? What great choices! No wonder people sell their stuff.

There are definitely underappreciated games, though, that don't get much love from mainstream reviewers but that do appeal to some people. That's why Metacritic and Gamerankings are so great. Even if a game only has one or two glowing reviews, they show up right at the top so you can see what's so great about those games. One good example is Enthusia Professional Racing for the PS2. Probably the most realistic driving simulator of the last console generation, but most places didn't give it above a 7 because it was so friggin' hard to control. It has a small but dedicated following.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's not "gamers" who have an obsession with them. It's fanboys. They need the to validate their console of choice, publishers of choice, game franchise of choice etc. I guess there's some more innocuous excitement over them. Validation for months of excitement leading up to a release etc. But for the most part the people making a big deal out of the--especially on other forums--are just fanboys who use them for ammunition in their petty flame wars.

To a gamer, they're just a tool to help weed out what to play in this age when there are many more good games than most of us ever have time to check out. Much less if we had to weed through all games rather than just a sub-set of highly reviewed games.[/QUOTE]Pretty much. It's how people like to prove their point whether a game sucks or rocks (although they haven't played it), or a way to prove their opinion a game they love rocks. I absolutely hate reviewers and don't listen to them.

However, I can't say much because I've used review scores a few times in forum arguments.

I sometimes question reviews these days because here's what I noticed:
-When a game has a ton of hype, it almost automatically receives crazy high review scores. Once the hype dies down, its review scores start going downhill. Not to pick on Lost Planet (a game I know some love), the game was very hyped and got some good scores early on. But the later reviews and PC version (which held up good) didn't fare too well, because the hype died down and people were reviewing over how they felt (I know tons of games that way.

-Niche games like vertical/side-scrolling shooters get terrible reviews constantly, but I find them fun. JRPGs tend to get terrible reviews while I'll enjoy them (The reviews for Lost Odyssey weren't too great, yet I think it's definitely one of the best games this year, and even generation).

-The DW/SW/etc. series are always fun IMO, but reviewers keep saying they are exactly the same, when there are additions made many times
 
[quote name='Unickuta']Before I continue on, I know that the people here are, mostly, not like the people I'm talking about- they're kind of above it (or just focused on the price). Try looking on the GameSpot forums to see what I'm talking about.

Well, anyways, why does the average, message-board frequenting gamer care so much about review scores, best games ever, game comparisons, etc? I myself am victim to this sometimes, but I don't understand why so many people care so much about these things.

I honestly don't know why.[/quote]


Because since you can't return a game once it is open, which is bullshit. I need to find out what others thought of the game before potentially wasting 60 dollars. Most games don't even have a demo. I find that the metacritic score usually ends up around where I would rate things after playing them so it is a good tool for me.

A good example is Assassin's Creed. I was all ready to waste 60 dollars on it. Read the reviews, rented it instead and hated it. For most of the same reasons as the reviews. You do exactly the same shit over and over and over again. 60 dollars saved.

There are certain types of games where I get my info elsewhere before buying like here or shoryuken.

Fighting games, jrps, srpg.
 
I think this is an interesting topic.

Obviously fanboys care for their reasons, but why do others really care.

I think part of it is time. Reviews are big because you just can't play every single game out there. A movie, for the most part, is 2 hours. If you are into movies, you can watch pretty much every big movie (blockbusters, busts, and hidden gems) every year if you wanted to. It won't cost you too much money, and you have enough time (if its your main hobby).

But, games on average ask about 20 hours of your time (some 10 some 50, so rounding it to 20 here). Even if you take the cost out of it (which, if you are willing to wait for sales, you almost can), it's just a time thing. So, almost no one has played all the games. If you make top 100 lists of games, you would struggle to find anyone that has played all 100 of them for any length, with movies, I bet most movie buffs have seen most of the movies on top 100 lists.

I think, because of this, gamers inherantly rely more on reviews for where they will spend their time, so they are a bigger deal to them.
 
Reviews serve some utility, for me, for games I may not be familiar with. For series that I am familiar with (let's say GTA or Final Fantasy), then I'm uninterested in the reviews. I know if I'll buy it or not.

But mostly I listen to other gamer feedback. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. But I like the opinions of people who (1) aren't paid to do this, (2) have been shown to have similar tastes to my own, and (3) are proven to not be the kind of system-based mongoloids that others can be. If I'm on the fence about something, I'll see what others say.

It's the reason I bought Orange Box. I couldn't have given a shit about that game until I read all of the oozingly adoring reviews for Portal.
 
The main reason gamers concern themselves with reviews more so than with other mediums like books, music or film is because the time spent playing a game is often many, many more times than that of the other mediums.

You play an RPG for maybe 40 hours, while a movie takes maybe an hour or two. So imagine seeing a crappy movie and compare it to watching 20 crappy movies.

That is why reviews matter, they matter more.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Doing the opposite has helped reinvigorate my interest in gaming. I stick with playing and finishing games only in the 8-10 personal score range (and really try to do 9-10 as much as possible).

I just don't have/not willing to make all that much time for gaming these days, and I'm getting a lot more enjoyment playing the cream of the crop. It keeps me from having a backlog weighing down on me and causing gaming to feel like a chore and my interest stays more piqued when I'm playing all games I love rather than games that are just good or mediocre.

Even if I had more time, I don't think I'd need to revise my standards downward as I can't even come close to playing all the AAA games that interest me on the 360--much less if I had reason to own multiple consoles this gen.[/QUOTE]

You're the type of gamer that they make reviews for. You don't do much thinking and will throw money at any game given a great score. Even if the only reason why it got such a great score is hype or the reviewer is getting his pockets lined. See GTA IV and SSBB. Which is a good reason why we get such shit games.

I find myself enjoying the games that don't score as high but are original more than the AAA titles. The last AAA title I have played was GTA IV and I wish I could throw the steaming pile of crap back in the faces of those that made it. Before that it was FF12 which I would like to do the same thing with.


I would NEVER allow myself to be swayed by a review. Reviews are crap. It would suck to miss out on a great game because someone else didn't like it or was being paid to say something different.
 
[quote name='Blitz']You're the type of gamer that they make reviews for. You don't do much thinking and will throw money at any game given a great score. Even if the only reason why it got such a great score is hype or the reviewer is getting his pockets lined. See GTA IV and SSBB. Which is a good reason why we get such shit games.
[/QUOTE]

Not at all. Did you even read my posts? I only play games I THINK will be personal AAA titles.

Thus I keep track of what games are coming out in the genre's I like from developer's I've enjoyed in the past, and from their reviews just help weed out the games that don't make the cut. I'll never play a game just because it got a high score, but I may skip a game I had some mild interest in if it doesn't get great reviews. I had no interest in SSBB or GTAIV and high reviews have not swayed me to check out either game.

It just happens that I tend to like AAA blockbuster games more than most random, little niche games as I mainly like FPS games and western RPGs these days. Not to say I don't play any smaller stuff, I'm enjoying the heck out of Puzzle Quest on the DS now, for example. But with limited time I mainly stick to the big releases in the genres I like.

Anyhow, all high scores do is either reaffirm my interest and I'll check it out for myself, or it may get me to check out a game that wasn't on my radar as I hadn't heard of it until seeing the high reviews.

But that's all. Reviews are just one piece of the puzzle of trying to decide what to play when I have so little time for games and waning interest in trying to make time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top