Poll: The Credibility of 'Professional' Game Reviewers

[4RM3D]

The credibility of professional game reviewers [henceforth called reviewers] has come up a few times in other threads, but I haven't seen a discussion solely focused on this. So here it goes...

I believe most of the reviewers are, to put it simple, crap. There are numerous issues at play here. I'll describe some of them below. The statements below are based on the majority of reviewers, not all of them. Feel free to comment and give your own opinion on the matter.

Game reviewers are biased
I guess the mother-lode of issues is that reviewers are way too biased. One reason I can think of is that reviewers want to maintain a good relationship with the game studios in order to get early access and other goodies. And thus they don't want to criticize the games too much. Another reason is that reviewers are 'soft' and easy-going. At least, that is the feeling I am getting here.

Exhibit A: Skyrim scored a 94 [http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim]. A lot of reviewers giving the game a perfect A. Are you kidding me? Hey, I personally like the game, but a 100? No, the game has a myriad of problems. A more accurate score would be approximately a 80. Of course you can dispute that and give the game a lower score, if you have the proper arguments.

Scoring system is broken
But giving a game a 80 is considered bad by many, no? How is a 80 bad? Maybe because people go expecting their games to be perfect. So if the game doesn't get a 90+, then something is seriously wrong with the game. We seem to have scrapped the scores from 1 to 90 completely and start counting from 90 instead.

The scoring system is severely broken. This can't be entirely blamed on just the reviewers. I don't really know how this all came to be. But the result is that game scores don't really mean anything anymore, when everyone is giving out 90+ on just a whim.

On a related topic. Even if the scores weren't skewered, I am still wondering if the current scoring system is really sufficient. The system has been copied from the movies. And you can't really judge a game the same way you judge a movie. It goes to far to get into this now, but I imagine a scoring system that isn't so '2 dimensional'; one that would fit better for reviewing games.

Game reviewers do not have enough time to really play (and finish?) the game
There is a lot of pressure to release a game review as fast as possible. For small(er) and 'simple(r)' games there isn't really as much time needed to complete the game and you won't miss certain important game details as often. But, lets say, Skyrim... How many reviewers actually played more than 50% of the game? I am guessing not a lot. Now, how about Mass Effect 2... How many reviewers played both 'sides' before writing their review? Isn't that like watching a movie, but walking away before the ending?

Can you really review a game if you have completed less than 50% of the game? I am sure you can extrapolate bits and pieces, but even that has its limits. I know it is virtually impossible to play every part (and side) of the game up to a 100% completion, but I still think reviewers tend to play too little of the game.

The issue mentioned above also applies to multiplayer. Probably even more so. You can't really experience the full extent of multiplayer from only a few sessions. Things turn even worse with MMORPGs. I have seen a few reviews of Star Wars: The Old Republic [http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/star-wars-the-old-republic] which were released a few days after the game. Even *IF* the reviewers played the beta, do you think they really experienced the 'end game' content? Wich also leads to the following problem...

Game reviewers aren't gamers
Reviewers are a bit like game developers in this regard. Neither are actual gamers. They tend to overlook certain critical issues. The most important one (for me) being gameplay balancing. Most games nowadays have balancing issues. Yet this is almost never mentioned in reviews. Something I get the feeling reviewers don't really understand the game.

What is the difference between a 13-year-old elite gamer and a professional game reviewer? The 13 year old knows how the play the game, but can't write a good reviewer about it. The professional reviewer knows how to write a good review, but doesn't know how to play the game.
HAH! Yes, I know, that was too extreme, too generic and too prejudiced. But you get the point.

Closing words
The wall of text is increasing so I'll stop here. Even though I could say more about this.

Let me end with a comparison with the film industry. The film industry doesn't have this problem as much. There are always some odd reviews, but most of the time the movie reviews are decent, not as biased and the scores not as skewed that of the gaming industry. Why? What is going on here?

 

[s0p0g]

well, about the rating system that - i agree - is sort of broken: Jimquisition "Hate out of ten"

besides that, it depends; i usually look for reviews that are as long as possible, so the reviewer has obviously written more than "like" or "don't like"
then i read through, and look at what he describes. if the game features (or seems to)... features i like, i'll get the game; if it doesn't i don't. so yeah, game reviewers are still a big help for me to decide whether to buy or not to buy - and that is the question, rite?

also, over time, you get to know the reviwers a bit, so you know how his judgement relates to yours, so you derive your possible opinion from his/hers

Yahtzee i watch for entertainment ^^

EDIT: i do not agree at the point that reviewers aren't gamers. if you found the magazine of your trust, maybe one where the reviewers also write a bit about themselves every now and then, you can see whether they game or not (although a magazine isn't primarily about the guys behind it, a short column here and there is quite helpfull to determine their style - which helps you to judge their judgement; see above)

 

[Kahunaburger]

I think that there are multiple problems with game reviews, and most of them center around either A) as OP says, the reviewer-publisher relationship, or B) the fact that we haven't really decided what criteria games should be rated on.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

Ill agree with the reviewing system being broken, I have no idea how a 7 became associated with average and 1-6 meant utter shit. Maybe its because of the bigger investment in games, like a move that was heavily panned by critics will only set you back 10-15 dollars, while a game with a similar rating would cost you about $60.
On the other points I dont really agree, all they can really do is put what they thought about a game down on paper. The only thing I would change about that would be if there were several reviewers looking at the same game to get different opinions, but then again you can always just look at several reviews to get the same effect.

 

[Zhukov]

I generally don't have a problem with reviews or reviewers.

Granted, the only ones I read with any regularity are here on the Escapist and over on Destructoid. I consider both these sites to provide reliable reviews of good quality. But whenever I stumble across one elsewhere I find them to be alright.

I agree with the OP regarding the ratings being screwy. 5/10 should be the average, not a rating reserved for absolute crap. 7/10 should be a good game, not something that generates hate mail. 9/10 should be great, and I mean truly great.

Of course, review scores are a stupid concept to begin with anyway. I wish we didn't use them. People end up getting all hung up on the score and completely ignore the actual comments.

 

[Wolfram23]

I think that there needs to be a distinction between a game review, and a game critique. A review, to me anyway, is more of a look at how the game plays and functions. Kind of a personal opinion on what the reviewer thinks. A critique, on the other hand, should look deeper into the game for the flaws; What makes the game bad. Yahtzee isn't perfect and does it more for laughs than as a serious effort, but he is a critic and points out issues that are often overlooked in reviews.

Anyway, I still look at reviews because they do give you at least some knowledge about the game and gameplay. They may brush over some of the shittier aspects, but if you read enough reviews/metacritic, you're bound to figure it out before throwing your money away.

I don't think it's ideal, but that's not likely to change.

 

[Dandark]

Game reviewers are not perfect, they may often have very different opinions on games than you, when reading a review it's good to keep in mind that this is what they thought of it and then buy it depending on what you have seen of it as well. (Gameplay videos, Trailers, screenshots and any other information on it, reviews are just another kind of infomation.

 

[Smooth Operator]

I trust only very few, and even with those I watch very closely for their downfalls.
My recent favorite is TotalBiscuit, he really only does first impressions but he gives you the perfect idea of what the game will bring.
He only get's a bit iffy when influenced by outside critique on a game, then he quickly hastens to it's defense on things he would normally be the first to criticize.

And anyone giving games a numeric score is meaningless to me, those numbers represent nothing, if you can't paint us a picture of what we are in for then why the fuck are you even doing the review.

 

[Tarby]

I've read debates about scoring games since I started buying game magazines how ever long ago the mid eighties was. It continued through the 90's, various methods being used, most of which are still in use now. I don't know what happens now as I've stopped reading "those" reviews.

In fact I hardly read reviews now to be honest because of the bias you mention. The reviewers tend (in my opinion) to be in one camp either for or against the publisher/developer/console manufacturer/the PC. Or they're bought and paid for. So many terrible games get apparently good reviews and high scores. DA2 would be a good case in point, I loved DA:Origins, but dislike the changes made so much I can't be arsed to play DA2 (checks PC save file, not been updated since 16th March 2011).

I score my reply 4 out of banana

 

[4RM3D]

Yahtzee has been mentioned a few times in this thread now. I think he is usually pretty funny. And that is his main selling point. He does have some valid points in his reviews, but they are blown out of proportion and not being put into perspective. In short: he is more funny than he is informative. Though, it is still an improvement over most game reviewers.

1. EVERY opinion is "biased". Humans cant judge something based off anything but their own opinion. You do need certain level of objectivity but you really are allowed to like or dislike any game for any reason AS LONG AS YOU EXPLAIN WHY (and that the said reason is not retarded). Reviewers just state their opinion of a game and its up to you to take their word for it if you trust them.

That is true to some extend. But I would like to think that professional reviewers don't let their feelings get in their way (too much), but instead give a professional opinion rather than a personal opinion. I mean that is the difference (but not the only one) between asking a friend about a game and reading a review, no?

4. Wait what? You do realize that most people who review games do so because they love games and play them a lot. And that is prettymuch the definition of a gamer. How do you even become one if you dont play games much? (Unless you are one of those "only harcore gamers who have played every classic pc game that come out over 10 years ago deserve to be called gamers" people. If you are then kindly never post again)

EDIT: i do not agree at the point that reviewers aren't gamers. *snip*

People (usually) become game reviewers because they like to play games. As a child you loved games and now you are actually getting paid to review games. It can't get much better than that, right? Well, not exactly. I guess -I hope- that reviewers enjoy their job to a certain extend. But there are also a lot of issues with the job. Just playing a game because you enjoy it, is not the same if you also have to review the game. There is also more pressure from your boss, which will limit the enjoyment of the game. Time pressure being the biggest one, I guess. Also you have to write a nice review that doesn't hurt game studios too much. Because that would be bad publicity. And I am sure there are even more problems.

The bottom line is that gaming becomes a job people enjoy less rather than an activity people enjoy more. This is not true for every reviewer. But these issues do pop up a lot.

 

[NewYork_Comedian]

I get the feeling everyone on this thread should watch this, as you need an opinion on every side for it to be an honest debate.

http://www.g4tv.com/videos/55954/sesslers-soapbox-i-hate-numbers/

But yes, about everything you pointed out is right, except for that last part which, as someone already said, reviews care about games and love playing them, otherwise why would they keep the job?

By now I only trust The Escapist, Destructioid, Giant Bomb, and Sessler on any video game reviews.

 

[phYnc]

Big websites / reviewers usually can't be seen to give the newest AAA game a low rating. Imagine the rage if Modern Warfare 4 was given 3 out of 10

Also most reviews scoring only goes from 6-10 anyway =)

 

[Awexsome]

Take them seriously? Most of them at least. I can disagree from time to time but they're still thought out and presented professionally and reasonable most of the time. Almost all of the time really.

Sometimes there can be a biased review or the whole "paid off" conspiracy theories about every single game ever but other than professional ones the only thing we have after that are user reviews.

Which should be taken slightly more seriously than your dog's opinion. And maybe equally if he has pressed a button on your controller accidentally before.

 

[veloper]

Destructoid reviewers are occasionally worth listening too. They still occasionally hate on bad games made by the big companies, when other reviewers default to good scores.

For reviews in general all the mistrust is deserved though.