Slashdot Mirror
Investigating Bias In Videogame Review Sites
jvm writes "We've all read comments that some videogame sites are allegedly biased for
or against some games, consoles, or companies. So, Curmudgeon Gamer has investigated whether bias can be seen in the review scores
over several games on each console. The review sites in question are GameSpot, GameSpy, and IGN, each of whom are compared to the game
review averages on GameRankings.
Additionally, a selection of review scores for crossplatform games are
examined. While solid conclusions are difficult to draw and improvements can
admittedly be made, perhaps people will find these results interesting to examine and
discuss."
I have to say, from the game reviewer's standpoint, that it's hard to give a game a bad rating.
1) You have advertisers. Typically, these people keep your site alive. They're expecting you to review their game.
2) You like games.
3) You get tons of swag, press passes, the royal treatment at trade shows, and a ridiculous amount of geek cred.
4) Did I mention that you like games?
5) You get to mention Sanya Thomas' butt in casual conversation. (see?)
6) It's a freaking game. What's not to like about a game? (well, unless it's Final Fantasy XI -- which I refuse to admit is actually a game)
Mystery@Warcry.com
The question is there no bias in this investigation of bias in video game sites?
because you aren't doing anyone a favour.
If I buy a $50 game based on your review then I can never trust your opinion again.
Regular readers should notice that you never give bad reviews.
If you can't be honest then you are *just* advertising not "relying on advertising".
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Curmudgeon Gamer's examination is certainly an interesting one, but what it complete neglected was the trend of increasing stupidity in gaming reviews.
Perhaps the slow but steady rise of ludology means that we may yet see a rise in the quality of game reviews, but by and large the current level of intelligence in most game reviews is as low as the number of female companions most of the game reviewers have (and I mean that collectively). Reviews inevitably follow the "Background, Cool Trivia About Game, Graphics, Controls, Bad, Good" template. The size of the font of the scores at the of end review keeps getting bigger, as does the size of the screenshots. Basically, we're left with an industry wide standard of two paragraph GamePro-esque reviews that generally boil down to, "It rocks!" or "It sucks!" EGM's recent redesign is a fine example of this. There is little in the way of anaylsis, or the game's relation to the industry at large, or (heaven forbid) society itself. I think there are sites on the net that are the exception, such as GameCritics.com, and ironically, Penny-Arcade. Likewise, I think either Computer Games or CGW (I always get them mixed up) is making a conscious move in the other direction. Kudos to them, and shame on the rest of the reviewers. I suppose that online is, strangely enough, more "textual" than the magazines due to the lack of space confinement. But the actual content is about as low.
What I'd like to see is a complete abolishment of scores all together in a magazine or website. It would mean, yes, you'd actually have to read the review. That's not to say there's no place for the blurb-y Gamepro-style of reviews with a big thumbs up or thumbs down at the end of the review. There obviously is, as it's quite handy for a quick reassurance when you're in the line at EB almost ready to buy the game.
But there needs to be more peer reviewing, more intelligent discoursing, and more analysis ala ludology in the gaming industry. Not everything is the next best thing since, well, the last game the person reviewed. But some things most definitely are, and it's these that need extra attention. Not, contrary to popular belief, more screenshots.
On Gamespot, they list GTA3 for the PC at a score of 9.3 (not bad since the PS2 version got 9.6). But lo and behold, the reader's score(s) drop the score by .3 points for the PS2 version and an even harsher .8 points. If you're concerned about small bias (a couple people picking 1's) : 19578 readers voted on the PS2 version and 2454 readers voted on the PC version. Hard to sway that kind of majority..
However, vice versa this also happens : .2 away from the much coveted 9.0 spot.
Gamespot (again) lists GTA2 for the PC at a fairly low 6.8 (OUCH compared to GTA3's score) and the PS1 version at 6.9. But insert reader reviews and GTA2 for the PC shoots up a whole 1.4 points and the PS1 version almost breaks acceptable levels with an insane 1.9 points! Nearly 2.0 whole points, and just
Keeping this in mind, its VERY easy to see how jaded or how harshly the public can "vote" when it comes to their favorite games. Throw a "reader review" system on Slashdot for programs between Windows, Linux, and Macs; and Windows will be lucky to get a score of 1.2 .
P.S. If you want to check the scores, use the GameFinder on the left sidebar on Gamespot.