[MystGirl]

How much "stock" should we put into game reviews?

I started this thread, because I notice so many of the games we are buying tend to get mixed reviews depending on who's reviewing them. I check out game reviews in game mags, online sites, word of mouth, etc, like everyone else, but how important are certain types of reviews?

Personally, I tend to rely more on word of mouth, or readers who've played a game, instead of a game website's own critic, or game magazine critics who work for the magazine. (they probably get bonuses to push certain games) I also notice they tend to be much more harsh on games that I've eventually played and really enjoyed.

For example, I just bought and played Keepsake recently. It got mixed reviews from readers, but "official" gaming website critic reviews that I read, were downright brutal. Same thing for Scratches. However, when I looked at the various readers who added their two cents to the "official" critic's review, they were more positive overall.

It makes you wonder how "impartial" the gaming mags, and gaming sites own critic's reviews really are since so many of us, disagree with them on a regular basis. For example, I loved Keepsake, even though it was trashed by a gaming site's main critic in one of their reviews.

So, I ask you, how important are game reviews from the "big guys" compared to our own experiences once we play them? I have found so many game reviews to be completely the exact opposite of how I felt about a game. That's why I really don't put much importance on reviews from the "main" gaming sites, or mags from their own critics. If I find a game that looks interesting, I get it.

See, in my mind, there is no such thing as a "bad" adventure game. Some are more puzzle based, some more character, or first person driven. But even the worst adventure game, is still better then the best shoot em' up and fighting game bore, that the consoles are offering these days. (In my personal opinion) Very few console games (unless they are adventure games that also come in console versions like Syberia) leave me feeling as thrilled as I do, as after having finished an adventure game.

For example, I was bored to death with DOOM 3, which was supposed to be the BIG console game that came out recently. (running around and shooting things all day, gets old after awhile) Give me something like Scratches over DOOM 3 any day, thank you very much!

The one thing I notice with gaming critics, is they also sound a tad impatient when they review adventure games, even if it's one they enjoyed. (maybe it's because they have so many games they have to play and review, whereas, we can take our sweet time playing a game, and therefore, enjoying it more?)

Anyway, I wanted to give a personal example of a game I played recently, that I loved, that the official game site critics did not like at all. (Keepsake)


What about you?

Which games have you played that you found you enjoyed, and ended up completely disagreeing with a game site's or game magazine's "official" review of it?

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by MystGirl

It makes you wonder how "impartial" the gaming mags, and gaming sites own critic's reviews really are since so many of us, disagree with them on a regular basis. For example, I loved Keepsake, even though it was trashed by a gaming site's main critic on one their site.

Just because a reviewer's opinion differs from your own doesn't mean they are in any way not being "impartial" as you put it. On that basis it would be logical to assume reviewers weren't impartial if their opinion ALWAYS agreed with yours as well. Disagreement is not an indication of foul play.

A review is always going to be an individual's opinion. Sometimes the reviewer with have the same tastes as you and sometimes they won't. If you read reviews regularly then you'll probably get a feel for which reviewers opinions most match your own (and hence which will give the best recommendations for you.)

But a decent review will tell you what led them to their conclusions about a particular game anyway. It's that detail that will usually let you make an informed decision. Personally I never rely on a single source exclusively for reviews when I'm making a game-buying decision. I don't think it's wise to ignore reviews entirely. Otherwise you've only got the game company hype to inform you (and where you'll spend your hard-earned money) and that's something you can guarantee will be biased.

[MystGirl]

Originally Posted by stepurhan

Just because a reviewer's opinion differs from your own doesn't mean they are in any way not being "impartial" as you put it. On that basis it would be logical to assume reviewers weren't impartial if their opinion ALWAYS agreed with yours as well. Disagreement is not an indication of foul play.

A review is always going to be an individual's opinion. Sometimes the reviewer with have the same tastes as you and sometimes they won't. If you read reviews regularly then you'll probably get a feel for which reviewers opinions most match your own (and hence which will give the best recommendations for you.)

But a decent review will tell you what led them to their conclusions about a particular game anyway. It's that detail that will usually let you make an informed decision. Personally I never rely on a single source exclusively for reviews when I'm making a game-buying decision. I don't think it's wise to ignore reviews entirely. Otherwise you've only got the game company hype to inform you (and where you'll spend your hard-earned money) and that's something you can guarantee will be biased.

I realize this. (good points by the way. Thank you for stating them) I was just using Keepsake as my own personal example, of an adventure game, that got lukewarm reviews, even though many of us have enjoyed playing it, after all.

I guess I just worry about too many of us (including me sometimes), turning to "game review slaves". We'll only buy a certain game, if it gets mostly positive reviews, and end up ignoring games that we could have enjoyed just as much, even though it might have gotten "medium" or even "negative" reviews. I just don't want to miss out on anything, even if a site's reviewer, wasn't that personally thrilled with a specific game themselves.

I never rely on one source for reviews either. I always check a ton of sources on a game I'm interested in. I also realize, that just because a site's or magazine's critic doesn't agree with my personal opinion, doesn't mean their opinion is "wrong", per say. But, just like my opinion, it is, just their personal opinion. So I take their reviews, with a grain of salt sometimes. (it's hard not to label someone else's review as "wrong" though sometimes, if you really loved a game they disliked. heh. Bad habit of mine.)

I do take some reviews under more serious consideration. For example, I like the reviews listed on this very site. They are very helpful, and tend to be in much more depth then reviews on other gaming sites. (probably because this site specifically focuses on adventure games) I'm not a complete review "snob".

I also look for reviews of folks who have bought these games from sites like Amazon, E-Bay, etc and if they've listed their own personal reviews of a game. I find those to be helpful too along with this site.

[AndreaDraco83]

The critics are, in a primary perspective, people and users like everyone here on this forum, and in the whole world. Every critic of any sort - cinematographic, literary , gamer and so - not only have a personal opinion, a peculiar vision but MUST have it, otherwise he'll be only listing the [product] specifics.

Getting to know a critic (and reviewer) is an important part the choice process. I'll make a movie example: if I'm planning to go and see a David Lynch's movie (which, by the way, I do without the need of any advise), and prior I want to read a review of the movie, I'll read the Cahiers du Cinema's one and the Roger Ebert's one, knowing the the first one will almost surely be favorable and the second one an unfavorable one. If, like it happened with Inland Empire, also the Ebert's one is favorable, it doesn't mean that - out of nowhere - now I'm gonna agree forever with Roger Ebert, which idea of cinema slightly differ from mine.

For an example closer to our topic, let's look at the Top 20 Adventures of All Time list, compiled by Evan Dickens: oh my God, Day of the Tentacle is at number one? i couldn't disagree more. But if i read the King's Quest VI's motivation for the third spot, I couldn't agree more. I understand what criteria stand behind the list and the single review, I agree with them even if I don't agree with the conclusion.

So, in my opinion, the important thing is to know which are the criteria of a reviewer, then prove the coherence of the same and then adapt the review to our personal viewing. I don't think anyone could be review slave, 'cause the personal viewing is always the most important thing, as a couple of thread in the Adventure section might prove.

EDIT: as always, I excuse for my English which perhaps isn't good enough to do such an elaborate post. If only I could post in Italian...

[AprilLives]

Professional game reviews are very important ... but I have learned to also read plenty of ordinary game-players’ reviews. These tend to give a more honest overall response to a game and you soon discover which one is or will become a classic. There is not that many of them.

I was surprised to see that GameSpot gave Riven, only a 7.8, for example, when it really is a 9.8 for having fulfilled perfectly what an adventure game needs to do.

[MdaG]

I tend to pay a lot of attention to whatever Edge says. They somehow doesn't enlarge a review score more than necessary. If they give a game 7/10 it means it's a good game, while if Gamespot give it the same score it wouldn't be a good game.
However I do tend to balance reviews with talk in for example this forum.

[misslilo]

I'm not sure I can answer just how important reviews are.
But I do read them - good or bad - doesn't matter.

What does matter to me though, is if the review tells me, whether this games gameplay is for me.
For instance - you can't always tell if there's any timed sequences (or action) in a game just by reading the info about it. And I absolutely hate that

Before Next Life came out, I was very excited... then the review came and it was somewhat ok to me, but then I read the threads in here about all the trouble people had with several places in the game - and that totally trashed the game for me.
So I would say, it's not always the reviews, but more other peoples experiences with a game, that's important.

[JKR]

I'm getting pretty fed up with reviews, now that the Wii has come along. Games like Wii Sports are incredible for people who don't need Metal Gear level graphics/story, yet it gets terrible scores from some gamers on sites. It's like they need several reviews now, one for people who casually play games and would love something like Endless Ocean, and one for people who are obsessed with technology and washed out colors seen in every other FPS game on the other consoles.

And anything that isn't a whole number scale is worthless to me. 7.2? 8.6? Please, just give it a whole number and be done! Seriously, what separates an 8.1 from an 8.2?

[Bobske]

Originally Posted by JKR

And anything that isn't a whole number scale is worthless to me. 7.2? 8.6? Please, just give it a whole number and be done! Seriously, what separates an 8.1 from an 8.2?

Couldn't agree more!

Personally, I do read movie, music or game reviews but they do not influence by choice of purchase. I used to buy PC Review magazine every month for the game reviews. The things is, I got the impression that the reviewers at PCR didn't like Sierra adventure games. SQ4, KQ6, QfG3 etc etc were all given mediocre ratings...

I loved those games!

I've enjoyed a lot of games that were given horrible reviews. Clive Barker's Jericho anyone? Not the best game around but I still enjoyed it very much.

I'm more of a "just try it you might like it" kinda guy

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by JKR

And anything that isn't a whole number scale is worthless to me. 7.2? 8.6? Please, just give it a whole number and be done! Seriously, what separates an 8.1 from an 8.2?

It does seem a bit of a pointless distinction doesn't it? This is why I only look at scores as a broad indicator and concentrate more on the text.

There probably is something to your "different reviews for different people" idea. This will even come down to types within a genre as well. Myst-like games have always had lovers and haters and reviews are going to vary according to which way a reviewer leans. It doesn't necessarily mean any individual reviewer is wrong as such. Just that their preferences are different.

I suspect the Wii is more likely to be susceptible to this at the moment because it's a control system unlike anything previously. As such someone assigned the job of doing all Wii reviews (because they are familiar with the new control system) may end up reviewing games they really shouldn't (because they are in a genre they inherently dislike. Say an AG reviewed by a die-hard FPSer)

[MdaG]

Originally Posted by JKR

And anything that isn't a whole number scale is worthless to me. 7.2? 8.6? Please, just give it a whole number and be done! Seriously, what separates an 8.1 from an 8.2?

There is a point to having real numbers define the score when the number is a mean value of sub categories or such.
e.g.)
Graphics 7
Story 4
Control 6
blabla 8

Here the total score could be (7 + 4 + 6 + 8) / 4 = 6.25 ~= 6.3
But as a whole I agree that it's not that important. But I do prefer a scale from 1 - 10 rather than 1 - 5.

[JKR]

Originally Posted by MdaG

There is a point to having real numbers define the score when the number is a mean value of sub categories or such.
e.g.)
Graphics 7
Story 4
Control 6
blabla 8

Here the total score could be (7 + 4 + 6 + 8) / 4 = 6.25 ~= 6.3
But as a whole I agree that it's not that important. But I do prefer a scale from 1 - 10 rather than 1 - 5.

I agree, 1-10 is better than 1-5, but I hate this 1-100 stuff (aka 1-10 using decimal places). Usually the scores I read state "NOT AN AVERAGE" so honestly the sub categories don't even matter.

If I were to do my own personal reviews I would have a very simple thumb up/thumb down final “score”. I dislike numbers because the current trend is that anything less than an 8 is poop in the eyes of mainstream review sites and their readership. Games that are rated in the 7 bracket are considered “barely tolerable” and anything lower than that is a “must avoid”. Sure they say it isn’t but we know the truth.

Like it or not these mainstream sites and magazines hurt game sales. I personally find it intolerable when they have someone who obviously hates (for example) adventure games review the latest adventure game and lo and behold it gets a 3.5 for its “outdated conventions” and “terrible graphics”. Everyone has their preferences and at times I feel that mainstream publications do this type of negative press on purpose.

In the end, delicate flower that I am, I always feel that games deserve some sort of kind word because there are actual people behind these games. While the game itself may be a total cash-out or something similar at least one person on the team put in a lot of time and effort in a “well at least I did the best I could on the bushes and trees” sort of way.

[Terramax]

There is only one reviewer I've ever agreed with practically everything they've said. Here:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/arti...eropunctuation

Apart from him, they're all a bunch of sellouts. Anyone who gives 9/10 to games like Mario Galexy and Halo 3 should be fired IMO.

Originally Posted by JKR

I agree, 1-10 is better than 1-5, but I hate this 1-100 stuff (aka 1-10 using decimal places). Usually the scores I read state "NOT AN AVERAGE" so honestly the sub categories don't even matter.

I think the magazine with the best rating system is Famitsu (Japanese). They have a score out of 40. However, the great thing about it is they have 4 reviewers of each game, who give a mark out of 10, then tally these up to out of 40. So if a game gets:

Reviewer 1: 7
Reviewer 2: 8
Reviewer 3: 5
Reviewer 4: 7

The total is 27/40. Not only that, but you're getting a more varied opinion.

Despite this, it's obvious these guys have a biasness towards Final Fantasy. Despite that, I give them my respect.

In any case, these days I only ever note reviews on Amazon.co.uk. As an Amazon reviewer myself, you can always get a better judgement who the target audience is and who enjoys it after reading 10 varied reviews on an item there.

[Squinky]

If it were up to me, I'd do away with scoring entirely. Personally, I'm not really all that interested in scores unless a game is given a ridiculously bad one, and that's only because I tend to find the most entertainment value out of reading the text of those sorts of reviews. (Yes, I'm looking at you, Robert Lacey.)

Seriously, though, while most reviews exist to answer the question "should I buy this game?", what I'm really more interested in is the question of "what is this game trying to express?" In other words, I'm more interested in criticism -- not necessarily OMG UR GAME SUCKS-type things (unless, of course, they're well-written and actually funny and informative), but analyses that really delve into what the critic perceives as the intent of the game and how well it succeeds in delivering it. ( This gives a more thorough explanation as to what I'm talking about.) That said, I do recognise the value of a conventional game review, and have even written my fair share of them myself, as most of you know.

Obligatory disclaimer: although I write for Adventure Gamers, my opinions do not, in any way, reflect any official view of the site as a whole. Thank you and have a lovely day.

[ShadeJackrabbit]

[sarcasm]Rats, now we can't sue them. [/sarcasm]

Personally, I don't really care what a score is. I tend to read reviews anyways if they look like something interesting. I don't have much else to add.

[Ksandra]

I think reviews can be very helpful, but you need to get to know the individual reviewer to discover whether their tastes mesh with yours. For example, I find Jack Allin's reviews very helpful, because I tend to find myself agreeing with a lot of what he says about a particular game even if I disagree with the overall score. OTOH, Aya's reviews at Just Adventure are also helpful - not because I share his taste in AGs, but because I disagree with him so consistently that I can almost guarantee that if he likes a game I'll dislike it, and vice versa.

I always try and read a few different reviews before I decide to buy a game, just to get a balanced picture. However, I generally find that playing a demo is an even better guide to whether I'll enjoy a game or not.

[MystGirl]

Originally Posted by Magoozelle

If I were to do my own personal reviews I would have a very simple thumb up/thumb down final “score”. I dislike numbers because the current trend is that anything less than an 8 is poop in the eyes of mainstream review sites and their readership. Games that are rated in the 7 bracket are considered “barely tolerable” and anything lower than that is a “must avoid”. Sure they say it isn’t but we know the truth.

Like it or not these mainstream sites and magazines hurt game sales. I personally find it intolerable when they have someone who obviously hates (for example) adventure games review the latest adventure game and lo and behold it gets a 3.5 for its “outdated conventions” and “terrible graphics”. Everyone has their preferences and at times I feel that mainstream publications do this type of negative press on purpose.

In the end, delicate flower that I am, I always feel that games deserve some sort of kind word because there are actual people behind these games. While the game itself may be a total cash-out or something similar at least one person on the team put in a lot of time and effort in a “well at least I did the best I could on the bushes and trees” sort of way.

I couldn't agree more.



In my personal opinion, adventure games seem to get an "extra" amount of negative reviews these days. For example, I read a popular gaming site's review of Burrow Hill. The reviewer said that "Burrow Hill is a perfect example of everything that's wrong with adventure games these days. Trapped in the past....etc, etc". What the reviewer didn't realize, was someone like me, was thrilled to hear Burrow Hill is "trapped in the past". That's exactly what I look for in adventure games. And by some of the comments I've seen on here by some who have already played it, it's quite an enjoyable game. So once again, I find myself completely disagreeing with yet another "official" review of an adventure game.

It just always feels like (to me anyway), that adventure games are especially "picked on" these days. They aren't the "cool kids" in the class, anymore.

I don't know. I guess I'm a bit overly protective of these games, since I love them so much. They just don't seem to get the same respect as other types of games out there. (except from sites like this one of course!) So, if I read any negative reviews about an adventure game on other sites, I tend to ignore them.

[ShadeJackrabbit]

Basically, that's how I see it as well. As the geeks are the chew-toys in high-school, the same applies to adventure games in the gaming world.

[Sar]

I do read reviews to glean what I can about a game. I personally don't care whether the reviewer liked it or not. What I am seeking is information, is the game point and click or something else? Is it story/character or puzzle driven? Is it glitch free? What is the game about? Tell me that and I will decide to buy or not buy. As I said I will almost always disagree with reviewer's opinions because I like a certain type of game not in the mainstream must buy bracket. In regard to Keepsake mentioned above bad reviews placed that in my "oh well" category and I ignored it. Finally out of boredom I bought it used on the cheap. What a nice game! As I said look at reviews for information and ignore the opinion. You know what you like, if the info suggest it contains elements that attract you then the negative review is likely wrong.