Why Videogame Reviews End Up Being So Controversial

Thanks to GamerDad for its editorial discussing why videogame reviews are sometimes controversial, and "why fanboys have such a hard time understanding that reviews are just opinions." The author explains: "I think it's simply a product of the games being essentially mechanical constructs... The mechanics of a game are often reviewed with their own numerical scores that then produce the overall total score." He goes on: "So many folks believe the pieces that create the game, because of the technology used (good or bad), define how good it can or can't be", before concluding: "Five stars out of five doesn't mean that's the greatest game and no game could be better. It does mean that it's one of the very best your money can buy in the opinion of the writer of the review."

Comments

opinions that look like facts.

[slothman32]

The problem with reviews isn't that they are opinions but that they seem to be facts. Many reviewers and critics make it look like a movie or game or book really is bad rather than they just think it's bad. I personally don't look at reviews because the opinions are so ubiquitous that I the "facts" become meaning less. If I like it I like it. What others think is irrelevant.

Welcome to life

[Turn-X Alphonse]

We live in an era where an opinion is taken as fact by most people (Hello TV). They cannot get that it doesn't matter who is right but that the truth is expressed by someone.

If I go into a shop and ask ten random people something like "Do you like apples?". 5 out of them should in theory say no, 5 should say yes. It won't work like that but it's the basic idea.

Everyone has different tastes (I dont like rap,it out sells everything right now. I can ignore it and shrug), we just have to accept and find a tolerance level for something we dislike.

There will always be "trolls" who just flame for the fun of it, s well as fanboys who would say Myst had the best gameplay ever. This is how life is, as long as no one becomes a zealot then there isn't a problem.

People need to accept that the Earth doesn't revolve around a carbon based life form with the same name as them. If we accept opinions from other people and tolerate things we don't like which they made do then the world runs fine. If we don't... well lets just say lawyers enjoy this sort of world and look where they are now..

Re:Welcome to life

[Otter]

If I go into a shop and ask ten random people something like "Do you like apples?". 5 out of them should in theory say no, 5 should say yes. It won't work like that but it's the basic idea.

Not to quibble with your larger point but -- that is completely untrue. The fact that there are two outcomes tells you nothing about the relative likelihood of the outcomes.

Got your reason right here

[Kris_J]

Video games are expensive. If I read a glowing review for a game, say Prince of Persia: Sands of Time or Doom 3, and I drop A$99.95 on it only to find that it sucks so bad it could pull the moon out of orbit (in my opinion) then I feel a lot more annoyed than if I'd only spent A$29.95 (the price of a new-release album). If I hadn't bought any of the games that I subsequently thought were crap, my bank account would be near a couple of thousand dollars healthier. I therefore think I've bought the right to bitch about crappy reviews.

Blame the reviewers.

[Thedalek]

Quite frequently, publications and/or shows get entirely the wrong person to review the game: Someone who is a button-mashing fighting game player is probably not going to appriciate the slower pace of a tactics-RPG. Similarly, the heavy-duty RTS fan probably won't find much to like in rhythm-based dance games.

Useful game reviews come from people who have similar tastes to your own. Case in point: Tommy Tallarico. Tommy is not mainstream, nor are his tastes. When he reviews games on G4TechTV's show Judgement Day, it's clear that he was put there simply to provide a dissenting view. Have him play even the most revolutionary turn-based strategy game, and he'll insult it in the most vile manner he can think of. Thing is, there's a certain segment of the population that has similar tastes, and they will find his reviews useful.

Another issue may be that some mediocre games get cast as "inexcusably awful" or "mind-bogglingly terrible" simply because it's easy for reviewers to get carried away insulting a game. "I'd rather rub my eyeballs with 80-grit sandpaper," is more interesting to read than "It wasn't awful, but there are no remarkable qualities to this game. It really isn't worth the money."

Re:Blame the reviewers.

[GTarrant]

I disagree, to a small degree.

Movie reviewers review movies all the time that aren't the "types of movies they like". Some reviewers dislike heavy drama, or foreign film, or whatever. But they watch them, and they are somehow able to write a review that is at least somewhat objective. Once in a while maybe they'll be way off, but most of the time they get close. They can look at something and say "I may not like this type of movie a lot, but I know good when I see it."

I think if you hire the right people to do game reviews - not fanboys of a certain genre, or whatever, then you can get that. Maybe they like RPGs the most, but if they can't see that, say, StarCraft, is a "good game" despite not being an RPG, then they should not be doing reviews in the first place. But that might cost more money, and certainly would make it harder to say "They're paying us big bucks, write up a good review!

T.

Re:Controversial?

[startled]

Agreed. I don't think "controversial" applies when someone gets pissed that their pick for Best Game Evar only got a 90%. (That's not an exaggeration-- I know reviewers who've caught shit from PR departments for giving something a lowly 9/10.) "Inflated" is the word I'd use for game reviews.

Classic example of reviewing gone wrong (Censored)

[Polarism]

FPS reviewer reviewing RPG: "Dude this bleeping game is boring as bleep, I have to keep killing the same bleeping bleep over and over again to level up."
RPG reviewer reviewing FPS: "Dude this bleeping game is boring as bleep, I have to keep killing the same bleeping bleep over and over again to advance through the game."
Captain Obvious: "Dudes, wtf? You're doing the same bleeping thing."

Resolution of scores

[0x0d0a]

I've always thought that game reviewers have a far too ambitious resolution on their scores, given the subjective nature of such scores. What person A likes "84%", person B may easily like "75%".

I could see someone maybe rating games from "1" to "5", without fractional breakdown. It's certainly possible to rate different factors -- graphics, fun, replayability, sound, and so forth (though the idea of "averaging" them to come up with an overall score is broken and pointless -- for example, strategy games generally don't put much emphasis on graphics, and adventure games not much on replayability). However, the idea of rating things based on a 1 to 10, 1 to 20, or even 1 to 100 scale is far too ambitious for any reviewer to effectively handle. Generally, if you start needing that kind of resolution, you should be asking yourself whether, perhaps, your scores might just be inflated and the distribution tilted heavily towards the top.

Re:Controversial?

[gl4ss]

and that's been the case for almost 10 years in the pc game scene.

you just can't trust high profile reviews, not one way or another. often they preview beta quality products and review them as if they were good quality - and then the game maker doesn't improve anything before the release too.

read warez forums.. they have the authentic play-test posts pretty early.