Topic: Don't let reviews influence your opinion on games

[idolminds]

Well, you don't really have any control over it.

The Guildhall at SMU, together with analyst group EEDAR, studied a total of 165 people who'd never before played PopCap's popular Plants vs. Zombies -- the only game chosen for the study, due to what was described as its unique combination of high quality and mass appeal.

Study participants were split into three groups: one exposed, prior to playing, to high-scored reviews of the game; a second exposed beforehand to negative reviews, and a control group who was not shown any reviews. After playing for 20 minutes, players were asked to give their own evaluation of the game.

On completing the study, participants got a choice: Take $10, or take a free copy of the game. Fascinatingly, "participants exposed to higher review scores were twice as likely to take a copy of Plants vs. Zombies over the $10 cash, and 85 percent more likely to take the game than the control group," says the study. And they were 121 percent more likely to take the game than were those who had seen poor scores beforehand. Players who asked about the game's real-world online or retail pricing didn't get an answer.

Critical opinion not only affects purchase willingness, but also a player's own opinion: The group that saw high scores tended to offer their own scores on average 20 percent higher than those that were shown low scores, but only 6 percent higher than the control group who had not seen any scores.

Now you know why companies get pissed when someone gives a game a review score lower than a 7.

[Quemaqua]

People are sheep.  Sad but true.

[MysterD]

I would've took the $10....
Then waited for a Steam or digital version sale.
It was like $4  the other day on Steam...

[idolminds]

[K-man]

People are sheep.  Sad but true.

Oh come on, it's nowhere near that fucking simple.

The whole purpose of reviewing a game is for the reviewer to give their opinion on whether or not a game is worth the time and money.  People who read reviews on a game are inherently putting their faith into the reviewer's opinion to convince them whether or not to purchase it.  This study really proves nothing beyond what we already knew:  Reviews affect people's decisions on whether or not to buy a game.  Because that's the whole point.  It's the same thing as looking at movie reviews before seeing a movie, or checking out a music review before investing in an album.  If a review isn't swaying someone's opinion one way or the other, then the reviewer is doing a piss poor job. 

What the study fails to take into consideration is that a normal person investing enough time to read a review on a game would more than likely check out more than multiple reviews before making a decision.  Any reasonable person would read reviews from both ends of the spectrum

Obviously the group reading entirely negative reviews going into the game will have a lower opinion because they've been given a road map to everything that's bad about the game.  Psychology 101.

One thing I do agree with wholeheartedly is the modern review scale thing.  I can remember a time where a 6.0 on Gamespot meant a game worth playing.  Now a game below an 8.0 really is considered middle tier at best.

[Quemaqua]

I've seen enough good games get a snowball of bad press rolling for no reason to believe that it's not always so easy.  I've also played enough games that most people didn't like.  I don't read reviews to determine if a game is good, I read to get an idea of what a game is about and what concepts it tries to employ.  At least for the most part (some reviewers I trust, and sometimes bad points are explained well enough that you can guess pretty well they're going to bug you too).

Anyway, I don't think people should rely so much on other people telling them what they should and shouldn't buy.  Not everyone is intelligent enough to find a journalist or two who are smart and trustworthy enough.  Most people read schlock written by advertising dollars and buy bullshit products because of it.

[MysterD]

Since we're on the topic of gamers liking games blasted by reviewers...
I thought the only review for Alpha Protocol PC that I thought was really on the money was PC Gamer's.
I swear - Mass Effect 2's excellent shooter experience really ruined AP for a lot gamers, unfortunately.

EDIT:

Wasn't this the reason for GameSpy switching to the 5-star system (w/ half-stars allowed), some years back?

[W7RE]

If I played a game for 20 minutes, but had read reviews for it, I would lean on the reviews as well. The people who wrote those reviews have (hopefully) played much further than 20 minutes in, and can tell me what to expect. This is where I look for facts in the review: how long is it? does it continue adding more plant and zombie types? Does it have any other game modes?

Yea, this is part of why I like 5 star scoring systems.

Giant Bomb's rating system explanation:
5 stars: While we don't believe any game is perfect, we recommend this game without reservation.
4 stars: Still very good and easy to recommend, though it doesn't quite live up to its full potential.
3 stars: The halfway point. An inherent appreciation of this game's specific gameplay style, characters, subject matter, and so on may play as big a role in your enjoyment as the actual quality of the game.
2 stars: This game's problems outweigh its good qualities.
1 star: This game will make you wish you had died in a fire moments before turning it on.

There are games they gave 2 stars to, that I own and enjoyed, but agree with the rating. Aliens vs. Predator comes to mind. According to those descriptions, an FPS fan might thoroughly enjoy a 3 star FPS game. Basically there's only ONE rating for shit games, instead of 70 percentage levels for them.

[MysterD]

Yeah, the 5-star system w/ half-stars - like Giant Bomb has - is pretty good. Those guys, I thought, always been pretty good reviewers, anyways.

Also, I like the school-like grading system - F, D, C, B, A - w/ the minuses, flat-grade, and pluses, as well. I think that school-like grading system can give a little more lee-way to be even more specific than the 5-star system - b/c of the minuses, flat-grade, and pluses (i.e. A-, A, A+).

[Cobra951]

And what is a school-grading system translated to percentages?

A - 90-100% (Excellent)
B - 80-89% (Good)
C - 70-79% (Average)
D - 60-69% (Deficient - shit sux)
F - 0-59% (Failure - shit really sux)

This is how we think, which is why a top-heavy scale should not be so surprising.

[MysterD]

You got a point, Cobra...