Game Reviews Becoming Irrelevant

Flynn

Flynn

Well-Known Member
Sep 14, 2013
2,474
815
1,970
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-10-13-the-death-of-reviews

It's something we've been saying internally for a long time. The game they review is not the game users have 6 months, or even 1 month after it ships. Content grows, features grow, gameplay mechanics are tweaked... it really doesn't make sense.

What does make sense, however, are user reviews as seen in places like the mobile markets, or Windows 8 store. There, you see the review scores from the actual players, you see what problems they hit, you see what they like or dislike... and as the game changes, so do the reviews. It's not uncommon for devs to ship something which is problematic at launch (resulting in justifiable low scores), but then to see them fix the major issues, and suddenly see a spike in much higher user reviews.

I, for one, completely agree with the post.
 
Good reviews give a pretty good impression of how the game is like so I'd like it if they kept those...
 
DriedMangoes said:
Good reviews give a pretty good impression of how the game is like so I'd like it if they kept those...
Click to expand...
That is if "good" review is defined as being a review you like and/or a review you agree with,then definitely yes.
 
I agree with this. Primarily because of the way games are reviewed. Games are effectively shotgunned one after another to meet publishing deadlines. Being put in a position of HAVING to play something isn't indicative of how games are played. Some days I dont want to play a horror game, or a puzzle game. That alone greatly affects how I feel about what I am playing. If someone tells me I need to finish Peggle 2 by midnight and write a essay about it when I dont feel like playing a puzzle game.....seems counter intuitive.
 
Kassen said:
That is if "good" review is defined as being a review you like and/or a review you agree with,then definitely yes.
Click to expand...

Isn't that how all reviews are done in today's world though? Pretty much every review is subjective.
 
I don't think reviews are irrelevant. They're fine if you take them for what they are -- an expression of one person's opinion. If I wasn't interested in other people's opinions about games, I wouldn't be here. User reviews are no different and often skewed by stupid internet agendas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frozpot
I tend to look at the overall reviews instead of a select few. There are a few sites I'll actually read like Polygon and Destructoid.
 
Adam said:
I agree with this. Primarily because of the way games are reviewed. Games are effectively shotgunned one after another to meet publishing deadlines. Being put in a position of HAVING to play something isn't indicative of how games are played. Some days I dont want to play a horror game, or a puzzle game. That alone greatly affects how I feel about what I am playing. If someone tells me I need to finish Peggle 2 by midnight and write a essay about it when I dont feel like playing a puzzle game.....seems counter intuitive.
Click to expand...

Yep, I agree. Alien Isolation a perfect example. A truly amazing game if you played at your own pace, but I can see how it would be frustrating and long if you had to finish it on a deadline.

I still put some stock in reviews though, as without them I never would've even considered shadow of mordor.
 
Adam said:
I agree with this. Primarily because of the way games are reviewed. Games are effectively shotgunned one after another to meet publishing deadlines. Being put in a position of HAVING to play something isn't indicative of how games are played. Some days I dont want to play a horror game, or a puzzle game. That alone greatly affects how I feel about what I am playing. If someone tells me I need to finish Peggle 2 by midnight and write a essay about it when I dont feel like playing a puzzle game.....seems counter intuitive.
Click to expand...
This is a good point. Sometimes it seems like they don't even have time to enjoy them. Adam Sessler is a good example. He was so ragged at one point, he just up and left it all, which is a shame because his old channel is lame now he's gone.

They even get people to review games in genres they don't really like, which is ridiculous.
 
Razzel said:
Yep, I agree. Alien Isolation a perfect example. A truly amazing game if you played at your own pace, but I can see how it would be frustrating and long if you had to finish it on a deadline.

I still put some stock in reviews though, as without them I never would've even considered shadow of mordor.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I give them some credence still. They provide a small degree of guidance at the very least.
 
DriedMangoes said:
There are good reviews, just up to you to determine which ones are good for you personally. ;)

I like IGN and GT.
Click to expand...
That would make sense if you could determine which reviews are good without actually playing the game itself. So no, there is no such thing as a "good" review.
 
Kassen said:
That would make sense if you could determine which reviews are good without actually playing the game itself. So no, there is no such thing as a "good" review.
Click to expand...

I do like the way IGN and GT presents their game impressions and how they generally write up their reviews. That, to me, is a good review. To you, maybe not. Simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kassen
Frozpot said:
This is a good point. Sometimes it seems like they don't even have time to enjoy them. Adam Sessler is a good example. He was so ragged at one point, he just up and left it all, which is a shame because his old channel is lame now he's gone.

They even get people to review games in genres they don't really like, which is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Honestly, if you're being hired for such a job, then you should have a very low minimum of genres you don't like to play. You either hire someone for specific genres or you make they have little to no prejudices to begin with.
 
Andy said:
I don't think reviews are irrelevant. They're fine if you take them for what they are -- an expression of one person's opinion.
Click to expand...

Andy, you've completely missed the point (and apparently didn't read the article?).

The point has nothing to do with the inherent subjectivity of reviews, and whether or not opinions matter - the problem is that the game they review isn't the same game that people play 1 month, 3 months, 6 months after release. The review is a snapshot of a moving target. The review tells people what the product was like at launch, but they give no insight to how the game changes, because they don't change as the game does.

It's a bit analogues to reviewing the OS of the X1 at launch... obviously every month, they're adding features, making meaningful changes, and a review of the OS from the launch time period would be completely irrelevant at this point. It wouldn't matter. Not because it's "just an opinion", but because it's based on a product which no longer exists... the new product is better, with richer functionality, more content, improved performance, etc.

That's the point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kvally
Kassen said:
That would make sense if you could determine which reviews are good without actually playing the game itself. So no, there is no such thing as a "good" review.
Click to expand...

DriedMangoes said:
I do like the way IGN and GT presents their game impressions and how they generally write up their reviews. That, to me, is a good review. To you, maybe not. Simple.
Click to expand...

You guys are all missing the point.

This thread has nothing to do with the inherent subjectivity of reviews, the style you prefer, the credentials of the reviewer, etc... that's all completely irrelevant.

The point is, regardless of all of those subjective qualities - 100% of current reviews are based on a snapshot of a moving target.

Every review of Titanfall is mostly irrelevant at this point. The game has more modes, more content, more features, bug fixes, increased performance, and more since they were all written. They speak to a product which no longer exists. Titanfall, as it exists today, is a factually improved product with factually more content, and factually more features... so it is in virtually every measurable way, a better game than what was reviewed months ago when it first came out.

That's the point being made here, and that's what this thread is highlighting.
 
Flynn said:
You guys are all missing the point.

This thread has nothing to do with the inherent subjectivity of reviews, the style you prefer, the credentials of the reviewer, etc... that's all completely irrelevant.

The point is, regardless of all of those subjective qualities - 100% of current reviews are based on a snapshot of a moving target.

Every review of Titanfall is mostly irrelevant at this point. The game has more modes, more content, more features, bug fixes, increased performance, and more since they were all written. They speak to a product which no longer exists. Titanfall, as it exists today, is a factually improved product with factually more content, and factually more features... so it is in virtually every measurable way, a better game than what was reviewed months ago when it first came out.

That's the point being made here, and that's what this thread is highlighting.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's a cycle. If the people liked the reviews, they'd buy the game, thus providing more feedback to the devs which in turn would produce better content. If noone hears anything about the game, I don't think there'd be as much sales in the first week.
 
DriedMangoes said:
Yeah, but it's a cycle. If the people liked the reviews, they'd buy the game, thus providing more feedback to the devs which in turn would produce better content. If noone hears anything about the game, I don't think there'd be as much sales in the first week.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point for sure, and one I'd certianly agree with.

The concept of a review works right up until launch, but after that, it fails to be relevant, because they so quickly get out of date. Personally, I think they need to investigate a way of updating reviews as the games themselves change, morph, and update...
 
Flynn said:
That's a fair point for sure, and one I'd certianly agree with.

The concept of a review works right up until launch, but after that, it fails to be relevant, because they so quickly get out of date. Personally, I think they need to investigate a way of updating reviews as the games themselves change, morph, and update...
Click to expand...

Eh, people usually buy for the initial reviews. But it'd be nice to have the reviewers do an "updated" version in half a year or something. But frankly, I don't think this would be worthwhile for them.
 
The issue is that when a game launches and is reviewed they review it as a finished product and as is.

Reviewers don't have time to wait 2 to 3 months or more for the game to add content or mature. They need to meet deadlines and such out of necessity. It isn't so much as 'reviews are irrelevant' and more of 'reviews reflect the maturity of the content on day 1.'

Obviously if a game launches with an anemic assortment of features and lacks certain staples/or industry standards it will be reviewed harshly.
This isn't the fault of the reviewers but more a slight against the developers who have had years of development time to make sure standards and content are mostly there on day one.

In that sense I think reviews are a good thing.
If you were going to buy a car in the future you don't buy it new on what you hope to eventually do to it. You may never end up modifying it at all. What you do is buy the car for what it has at the time of sale that appeals to you.
 
Battlefield 4 is a great example of the point Flynn is trying to make. When the game was released I would tell people don't buy it. 11 months later I would say definitely get the game. They fixed most of what was broken originally. there are several other games that fall into this category upon release as well. so I totally agree with that article.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flynn
The Living Tribunal said:
If you were going to buy a car in the future you don't buy it new on what you hope to eventually do to it. You may never end up modifying it at all. What you do is buy the car for what it has at the time of sale that appeals to you.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, but that's a very poor analogy.

Your analogy implies that users have a choice, and often they do not. These days, most games *reauire* updates.

Your analogy also fails (and actually illustrates the point I'm making in the thread beautifully), because in the case of the car - you might demand a car that has cruise control, but car 'A' doesn't come with cruise control out the gate. A month later, they enable it via an update to the Car's computer. Well, if you made your decision *not* to get the car out the gate, you made a poor choice not getting it, because it actually *did* have everything you wanted, it just didn't have it day one.

Again, I see your point, but the analogy just isn't a very good one. I think it's actually much easier to understand the situation as it is if we just leave it to the realm of software.

Destiny today is not what Destiny was at launch. It's better than it was at launch.
Titanfall today is not what Titanfall was at launch. It's better than is was at launch.
BF4 today is not what BF4 was at launch. It's better than is was at launch.

The list is long, this gen. Those are just three. So, are the reviews of those games accurate today? No. No, they are not.

I do still see some value in reviews for games right out the gate for sure, but I think they need to change their model, otherwise long term review of scores becomes virtually meaningless.
 
I think game reviews became irrelevant the moment they started putting blocks on when a review could go live.
 
What is dying and should die is Metacritic way of quantifying a quality. Reviews themselves are stronger than ever(especially if you consider the "first look" videos in Youtube) but it's the impression, clear bias or standpoint to agree (or completely disagree) with, and detailed explanations that really do matter. Scores, on the other hand, is becoming useless, and again it should have been that way since the beginning. How do you turn quality into a number?
 
Becoming...I thought they already were. I know reviews have not really be relevant to me for like 6-7 years now.
 
very few game barred MMOs are different from initial release & a few months later.

The main Issue I have is Embargo, & publisher demand special condition or favor for reviews to get their copy.

Also the sad thing that hype/marketing sell more than higher quality. Just look at Watchdog & destiny, both fairly average in score but sold millions. I bet most people already bought or preordered their game before reviews were out.
 
starseeker said:
very few game barred MMOs are different from initial release & a few months later.

The main Issue I have is Embargo, & publisher demand special condition or favor for reviews to get their copy.

Also the sad thing that hype/marketing sell more than higher quality. Just look at Watchdog & destiny, both fairly average in score but sold millions. I bet most people already bought or preordered their game before reviews were out.
Click to expand...

Games which get hype are usually the ones people think are higher quality. So no, Hype does not negate quality at all, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back