Study Shows Word Of Mouth Makes, Breaks Videogames

Thanks to GameSpot for their analysis of a new Zelos Group study on videogaming, in which it's calculated that "...over 70 percent of respondents say conversations with friends are the primary means for securing information on games." The study co-ordinator elaborates further, reporting that "...face-to-face conversations with friends is the primary source for information about games, with websites coming in second. Instant messaging among friends is probably the second most influential kind of word of mouth communication, and then online forums." However, he has this dire caveat: "Forums offer publishers the most direct influence over word of mouth outside of guerilla marketing techniques, but online forums are inherently full of noise: 'fanboy' rants and antisocial behavior foremost."

Comments

because the Games Press are biased.

[henbane]

Of course people listen to their friends. How is it that game reviews are almost all uniformly over 7/10 even though most of the stuff is trash? If the gaming press had respect for their readers rather than the publishers and junkets people might actually listen to them over what their friends might say.

Re:because the Games Press are biased.

[gl4ss]

and if it's an exclusive it's almost always 90+.

and if it's an interview, it's ALWAYS HYPING UP the product.

it's like if sports interviewers were always "certain" that the guy they just interviewed was going to be the champion(and they interviewed 20+ guys per day).. who would listen to their opinions then anyways? pc game mags _had_ some rep, back in beginning '90s(properiaty platform spesific mags never had any reputation to begin with.. except as a good source for cheat codes and guides).

so the way to find out if a game is worth buying is either to ask around or play the game somewhere.

i stopped buying/reading game mages some 8 years ago when it became already painfully obvious that either i would have already 'tested' the game(somehow, you figure it out) or they were making up the so called review from screenshots(and for real reviews, there was no comparision for asking around irc even back then).

Re:because the Games Press are biased.

[h0mer]

This will not be one of those posts with a million links. That being said, I used to think the same thing as you. The reason you think that is you usually have to look for reviews of bad games. Reviews of Rugrats In Paris or whatever are obviously not going to be hot articles.

Also, I speak from experience. Call me a mindless consumer if you want, but I pick up around 90% of games across all 4 platforms that get good ratings. Guess what I found out? The reviews are usually right!

On the Internet though, I would be suspicious about most sites that aren't IGN or GameSpot. It's usually better to look at GameRankings and get an impression of all the reviews. Smaller sites' reviews are not to be trusted.

Finally, I know someone's going to flame me about IGN, and I point to Mario Kart: Double Dash!! for them. IGN gave it a overall 7.9 and every other review I've seen has been a rave. Interesting eh?

Re:because the Games Press are biased.

[cgenman]

Agreed

Many readers won't go past the initial two paragraphs in an article. Many Game sites have the annoying habit of starting an article by reprinting the publisher's press release, without even bothering to strip out the obvious factual mistakes... like declaring Grand Theft Auto 3 "Only for the XBox!"

Once you get past that, they're excited about the new hyper-realtime plasma chain-combo burst processed fighting style, which means absolutely nothing except it has a nifty (but forced) combo system. They parrot much of the official publisher line, they love all of new features... They don't yet know how anything actually works after only 3 hours of play, but the guy that gave them the disk said everything was perfect, right?

Games are reviewed by people who want to review games. If someone on your staff is a football fan, you're going to give them NFL 2K4 to review. If they love FPS games, they get the new Half-Life. Neither of these reviews will reflect the opinion of the person sitting on the fence wondering what to buy. How will that guy who has played every other Legacy of Kain game to death feel about the new one? Why, he'll love it, and give it a 9.7. Greatest Game Ever. This, of course, doesn't really help anyone.

If sites are going to be consumer reports, where are the side-by-side comparisons? How does one decide between Warcraft 3: Frozen Throne, Age of Mythology: Titans, and Empires: Dawn of the Modern World? What does one invest their time and money into? If sites are trying to be the next Siskel and Ebert, where are the deep, probing social correlations? Where does Max Payne 2 fit into our societal consciousness? Right now we're still at the level of "This game ROXX!!!!" or "This game SUXX!!!!"

Part of the problem is definitely the quality of writing in online gaming journalism. People grew up expounding on the quality of one game or another, and carry that style into their professional lives. "How did you like such-and-such a game?" "I loaded it up with anticipation, but it sucked. 7.9" Certainly this personal style can be interesting and easy to read, but it leads to a superficial understanding of the situation. Furthermore, it leads to juvenile descriptions of what the reviewers would like to do with the female character's breasts, long-winded sidetracks onto subjects which have little to do with the matter at hand, logorrhea, and plain old fashioned bad grammar.

The most useful part of any magazine was the section where 4 reviewers were constrained to one paragraph and a score, combining directness, succinctness, and judgement. Losing your audience was not an option, as you had very little space within which to formulate an opinion on a game. And no matter how many people you had on staff, you were unlikely to have 4 that happened to be huge soccer game fans. Hype was often balanced by objectivity or downright dourness, and overall the impression left behind of the game was pretty solid.

Sadly, such varied formats have been whitewashed by the world wide web, where page constraints have disappeared. In gaming publication's heyday, there would be a special hype 4-page section for upcoming buzzworthy games, a 1 page section for upcoming games that may or may not be cool, a "quick clips" page for small releases, 1 or 2 page reviews of released games, the 1 paragraph condensed review galleria, a 1 page perspective piece on the industry, a rumors page, letters, and an in-depth strategy guide. Now sites have 4 page reviews, a "news" section that they haven't really focused on since 2000, and strategy guides for subscribers. Only the games that everyone already knows about make it to the front page (Legacy of Kain has been sitting on Gamespot's front page for about a month now), and smaller titles get lost in the shuffle. So much text is generated that the signal is lost in the noise.

If online 'zines are to be relevant again, they need to re-think their formula. Condensed information, available now, from passably elo

BS word of mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

I think its ironic how many word of mouthers merely quote from websites and game trailers rather than actually play the game in question.

of course fanboy rants

[Apreche]

It's obvious that most online forums are full of fanboy rants. The types who post those rants are the types with no friends, so their only social interaction is the chance that some other fanboy or some other normal person will agree/disagree with their extreme fanboy point of view on a forum and they might have a conversation (flame war).

People who have friends often buy games based on what their friends say for two reasons. Reason one is they are friends because they have similar taste and they buy and like the same games. Reason two is that friends are often poor and will communicate with each other so they don't both buy the same games and therefore maximize their game/$ ration.

Re:Enter the Matrix

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of people liked it. It was a good game. Your opinion is not the majority.

Tomodachi

[shione]

Probably because people are more inclined to listen to their friends than some review site which could have been paid to say good things about something. A friend is more likely to point out the bad points about a game than the good things (case in point a disatisfied customer will tell x number of people, but a satisfied customer will only tell y number. wher x>y). People tend to remember bad things more easily and when they play a game, the apsects they dont like seem to make a bigger impact on their impression of the game.

useless forums

[Bazzargh]

The thing that really drove it home for me how bad forums are is this set of reviews for Rockstar's Manhunt title - not released until this Thursday.

This site lets users review games before they're even out. As a result, there's a bizarre mix of "10/10 it will r00l", "1/10 this game is sick", along with 10/10s from people who never bothered to change the default rating (and are just asking where to get a demo), and oddest of all, people who rate it from 5-9 based on their understanding of screenshots and rumours.

Worst. Review. Ever.

And I'd just like to take this opportunity to rate Half-Life 3 a 7.5 out of 10 - I expect solid gameplay and stunning graphics, and some nice twists, but to be ultimately left wanting more. Can't wait for its release in, er, 2006.

-Baz

Re:useless forums

[indros13]

This is why features like Amazon's "was this review helpful?" are essential to user review sites. Just like Slashdot's moderation and meta-moderation systems, you have to check the checkers.

Re:Artificial forum members?

[Anonymous Coward]

The company I work for has recently launched some new products in Asia, and I was gobsmacked when I found out the advertising agency actually does this. We are talking 5-10 people per country, focus them for a week or so, and get onto every forum they can get into and create a buzz. Apparently they have groups of accounts they keep ticking over on the forums to keep them credible, then when there is a new launch of a product (esp. when there is downloadable movies, flash games, etc) and pimp them. Price is quite reasonable too, built into the advertising costs and a fraction of TV time.

Posting anonymously to protect my career (damn you Google!... ah, your'e right, I can't stay mad with you.... come here for a hug!)

This only makes sense...

[amuro98]

One of the biggest problems I have with reviews is trying to figure out the underlying biases the reviwer already has. As mentioned by another poster, if you give a FPS fan Max Payne 2 for a review, you're going to get a review that's going to be biased towards a good rating, in general.

Likewise, if you gave someone who hates RPGs FFXI to review, it's going to get a horrible rating, unless it's a phenomenal game.

With friends, you already know them a lot better - and they also know you. So if you ask a friend about whether you'll like a game or not, you can be fairly sure that the answer they give you will be pretty accurate. It's not fool-proof, a friend of mine and I like RPGs a lot, but our opinions on FFVIII are very different. Still, it's a lot better than trying to look at the reviews in magazines or online websites to determine if the game is worth your money.