Ben-DutkaThis pic is a visual example of what too many video game critics have been doing as of late: using a gimmick to get more people to read their article.
In this particular case, I'm talking about issuing a review that clearly contrasts sharply with the norm, thereby causing a big ruckus and generating plenty of traffic for the author's website. We are in a unique position in this industry, in that the vast majority of journalism happens in the virtual realm and further, most all sites depend on traffic for revenue. In other words, the more people that read our stuff, the better chance we have at getting more money in our wallets. That's just how the game – pun intended – is played. But with so many new and smaller gaming sites out there desperate for attention; desperate to draw a few of the millions away from GameSpot and IGN, I've noticed that some so-called "critics" are using review scores as THE gimmick.
Thing is, in the virtual world, gamers talk a lot about the industry in thousands of forums around the Internet and if you think this doesn't have an impact on traffic, you're out of your mind. Therefore, the winning formula appears to be simple: take a game that everyone seems to love and either give it a much lower-than-normal overall score or simply write an article denouncing it entirely. This serves two purposes: 1. it brings in the aforementioned traffic simply due to the controversy it creates, and 2. the elitist principle that too many critics already suffer from comes to light. We gaming vets are quite familiar with this principle. It's the rule that says "I know more than you, so I'm going to tell you why everyone else is wrong about this." Unfortunately, they're forgetting they're not serving the gaming public correctly by doing this.
I hate to do this, but for the time being, I almost have to recommend that gamers toss out the statistical outliers when it comes to review scores if they come from a lesser known source. The gigantic sites almost have no need for such gimmicks anymore, but those are really the only ones who are immune. When we gave Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 a 8.9, the Comments section exploded. And while the score was hardly given for that purpose, we knew it was going to happen and I'm positive reviewers from sites you've never heard of are writing their reviews for the express purpose of getting attention . Now, maybe you clicked through to this article because of the hot chick and if so, well…you get where I'm going. Just be careful about the scores and make sure you read the actual text.
You may find that while most all critics gave the game a 9 or above, this one gave it a 7, but the complaints as to why it got a 7 are either amazingly thin or just plain fabricated. Scores have a huge impact in this industry, and traffic has a huge impact on websites. If you put two and two together, you get a problem that I think you should be aware of. Just thought I'd throw this out there.
Well they say Controversy Sells.
The Look At Me syndrome doesn't really apply to critics when it comes to well known games such as Halo, CoD, RE because just about every critics will give those game high score.
Regardless of what score it actually deserve.
Last edited by Snaaaake on 11/21/2009 5:28:40 AM
Good article Ben, and your MW2 review was spot-on. Its just a shame in the first paragraph of said review you felt you had to justify yourself in fear of possible backlash due to something along the lines of this article. Its a funny industry.
It was Arnold who reviewed it, but then again, a very honest and very very good review imo.
But he still get bashed even though he explained himself.
I don't think I got bashed, actually. I was surprised at the overwhelming amount of people who agreed with me. =)
I had my flame suit on and everything, but almost everyone, except for 3 or 4, agreed. I was shocked.
If I read a review I mostly look for the ones without a rating/score. Looking at a score/rating unconsciously affects my decision (and perhaps other people's as well)
Review scores must be taken with a grain of salt. While some sites are going to have accurate reflections of the quality a game possesses, it definitely won't be the case with others, just like Ben said. Review scores can be a nice gauge of whether you should buy a game right away or rent it first. However, if it's a game that looks interesting to you as individual, you should play it (if you have the time). That's how I base my playing habits anyway. My collections consists of a myriad of games that received variable scores. I do have many that got scores of 9+ but that doesn't mean i never played the ones that got <5. A favourite RPG of mine is Enchanted Arms which had scores ranging from 4 to as high as 9. The only articles that really matter, the ones that let gamers make an biased decision for purchasing games, are going to be the "hands-on…" articles. They can give an idea of how a game plays without attaching a numerical value to how good everyone should think this game is.
Ben, I think your article hit the nail on the head.
::applauds::
Well, what do you expect? The one flaw most game reviews are packed full of is opinion. It's not a bad or a good thing, it's a human thing. We stamp our opinion on a lot of what we encounter. It's no surprise sites would this. It's good that articles like this are written and I think us readers should veto websites that scam scoring.
To be honest, I don't care what the ratings are, personally, I'm more inclined to jump into a review looking for bugs/glitches/crashes/screen tearing on multiple sites, in the comments and on the forums. As a avid PC gamer who spent Sub-$50 for games, it's hard to swallow a $60+ price tag for glitchy games.
I do enjoy your site Ben. I think what you do here is very clean and unbiased. I'm glad your audience are mostly adult-ish with their comments and not total "xbox360 suxxxx1"-type spammers. I guess with great work comes great followers!
I disagree with the article. You're saying that all reviewers should have approximately the same opinion of a game. That's not right. I've spent plenty of money on games that got magnificent reviews, only to find that I, personally, did not like them at all. That's why I always make a point of reading the negative reviews, as they often point out things that everyone else chooses to gloss over because they're afraid to go against the majority.
I think a far bigger problem is reviewers giving games high scores because A) they're a fanboy of the franchise B) if they give it a bad review, they'll anger millions of their fanboy readers who may go to another site, taking money out of their pockets, and C) all the hype preceding a game's release inflates the score – "Oh my god, I'm playing the game I've dreamed of playing for the last three months, I'm really doing this!!!"
In the end, what really matters is that you find a reviewer that you tend to agree with. When I go to a new site, I read a few reviews of games I liked, and a few of games I didn't like. If I find I disagree with the reviewer, then what use are his opinions to me? It would be like asking my 17 year old daughter what CD I should buy.
That's not what I'm saying, Jack. I don't think all reviewers should be of the same opinion; I'm merely saying that if you see review scores that are significantly against the grain, I would be suspicious of it (for the reasons stated in the article).
You're also overplaying the "fanboy" element. That may be the only thing people talk about in forums but most reviewers (PROFESSIONAL reviewers) don't fall prey to this. It's just their job. This is ANOTHER reason I don't think you should automatically trust questionable reviews from smaller sites.
After reading this article the IGN COD:MW2 review came to mind, while it isn't really the case of attention seeking reviewers it is however the case of double standards.
As you know by now they gave it a 9.5 but that's not the point here, they gave the graphics a 10 as in the same 10 they gave to UC2. I don't know about you guys but to me that's incredible misleading.
Then the same site (although admittedly not the same reviewer) gave the graphics for the GOW collection an 8.0 stating that the graphics had nothing on Uncharted 2.
Which makes me question the validity of the site to compare a PS2 ports(although upscaled) to the BEST looking game this generation but not keep up this practice to the most hyped game this generation seems a little unfair and inconsistent don't you think?
By the way this isn't a swipe at COD as regardless of graphics it's a fun and VERY addictive game and currently the only game I'm playing.( sorry for the rant)
I see what your saying dude. Overall Uncharted 2 is the better looking game but you look closely at things like the weapons, gadgets, attires and that's where MW2 stands out. Yea so maybe they coulda given the graphics of MW2 a 9 whilst U2 got a 10 but at the same time both of'em having a 10 for graphics is cool imo.
The hype surrounding MW2 was stunning and influenced a lot of reviewers. IMO, the game is not a 9+ game.
Terrible short single player campaign
Somewhat fun Special ops
Good and fun multiplayer.
Average graphics (a lot of reviewers gave 10 on this particular category, seems like they didn't play KZ2 or U2:AT, both games easily tops MW2 graphics)
As much fun as I have with MW2, it's a 8.5 for me.
Excellent points on the current issue of "gaming politics" Ben. This makes PSXEXTREME one of the most "reliable" gaming sites (even if it's dedicated to one console) when it comes to reviews.
Strangely enough these "biased" reviews peaked when Uncharted 2, Halo: ODST and Modern Warfare II hit this year. I think it's due to the severe contrasting issues that reviewers try to make out without realizing they can't find "middle-ground"
Halo: ODST:
Same graphics, different storyline no vast improvement.
The positive – Although there's no originality but 2 year old graphics are "nostalgic"
The negative – Too short
Final Tally: 9.0
Uncharted 2:
Re-done the whole game from graphics/gameplay/cinematics/length/sound
The positive – Updated engine, mass improvement.
Negative – No originality.
Final Tally: 9.5
Modern Warfare 2:
Few improvements, poor storyline, just another sequel, no originality…
The positive – 5 + million sales on the first day.
The negative – Did not meet 10 billion on the first day.
Final Tally: GOTY.
Last edited by Ricochet on 11/21/2009 9:30:41 AM
A review is simply an opinion, no matter how much you desire it to be otherwise. Opinions will vary, and thus reviews will as well. A differing review score is not invalid simply because they don't blindly follow the masses, though I'm sure some laughable arguments will be made to the contrary.
buckeye a review is not simply an opinion, as any reviewer worth his salt knows.
Exactly. No review is entirely subjective, and there is such a thing as "better" and "worse" in the world of graphics, sound, presentation, control, etc.
People are just going to have to accept this. It's easy to say "oh, it's just opinion," because firstly, it means anybody can write a review and analyze a game (WRONG) and secondly, it essentially renders all reviews meaningless.
Bullsh**.
like Dirty Harry said once "opinions are like azzholes, everybody has one"
@Buckeyestar
I disagree. A professional review SHOULD NOT BE just an opinion. It should be a carefully reasoned out judgement of a game based on the game's apparent merits and demerits. The reviewer is not writing for just himself/herself (or for a particular fanbase), he/she is giving a professional assessment of the game as a whole for the entire gaming community.
An opinion of a game would be valid only on a personal blog.
Last edited by Thinker on 11/22/2009 5:09:05 AM
You triked me! I thought I was going to read an article about a hot chick getting out of a red car, how could you decieve me like that.
makes sense and all ill say is 8.9 aint bad for mw2. it aint much of a change on omething that was good, so it doesn't deserve a 10. it aint bloody revolutianary is it? uncharted 2 was at least a huge reform.
How many times are you going to write about this?
Thanks for the down vote
https://temp.psxextreme.com/ps1-news/597.html
https://temp.psxextreme.com/feature/378.html
Can someone answer me this.
Why ppl whine about MW2 lack of originality?
Seriously? Did you expect a RPG?
Heck! What do you expect from GT5? or the famous GOW3?
A game review only give the world what they thought about it, heck, if game review score are so full of influence, then MGS4 would have sold 10 million copies by now.
To that one no-name guy who "cant remember the last time (he) actually agreed with a review".
Did you not read or even notice Ben's honest review of Assassin's Creed before flaunting around your fragile opinion?
First of all, COD MW2 got so much hype because it has been around for a while now. It only takes a grain a thought to realize that a franchise with hyped predecessors will have hyped future generation titles!
Second point, all those games you listed as your most enjoyed were all in a sense "experimental titles". Batman AA, Bayonetta, and Infamous are all the start of something new. Meaning they have no prequels for anyone to recognize them or be familiar with. Rationally, the safe choice when deciding which games to purchase is to go with a title that is already successful. Although a narrow-minded decision, people will always get what they want, and usually not much more in terms of the experience obtained.
Lastly, who says these three titles (aren't)/(didn't) (getting)/(get) that much attention or hype. I knew about the release of Batman AA and I'm sure many others did too before its giant release date back in August. Infamous was a great title as well and was very successful and renown before its release if I'm not mistaken. Bayonetta is a game I have heard a great deal about as well. If you frequent this site you'll see that it gets a lot of attention.
The issue you are facing is trying to compare your most enjoyed titles with a legendary beast like the COD franchise. COD, the title alone accumulates its own hype. You can't compare a new exclusive that no one has ever heard of before and two relatively new multiplatform titles with no predecessor/s to a world renown beast like COD. You just can't do that. Not to say that these titles hold no comparison gameplay-wise (because they surely do). But they haven't made a mark on the gaming community to really earn the hype COD itself has obtained over the years.
Please "NO-NAME" think next time BEFORE you jot down some non-sense.
P.S-If you actually read Ben's and Arnold's reviews (not just look at the scores) you might understand how it earned that score.)
Last edited by just2skillf00l on 11/22/2009 3:47:36 PM
I have to disagree with you Ben, what sets reviews apart are opinion. Sure the basis of it has to reflect the technical side, but the difference in reviews from peer to peer is opinion.
Yes, anyone can write a review. It's a free country. I'm sure you don't have a license to write game reviews.
But, a journalism background, knowledge and experience of the field, and artistic flair will get your reviews recognized and accepted. Thus creating a following and web hits, notariety and what not.
I happened to like your reviews by the way.
It's all just opinion. I have no problems with a reviewers score as long as they are honest with themselves, consistent, and put the work in to give a proper review.
I've taken exception to a few things written on this site and I've spoken up about it.
As far as posting a low score just for web hits, well I briefly toiled on a gaming site as a contributor and there is definetely a fine line there. Create interest and comments, but not to the point where you aren't taken seriously anymore.
The industry is very fast paced and I give credit to Ben and Arnold on staying on top of stories as they develop and actually publishing something worth reading.
Last edited by JPBooch on 11/23/2009 10:05:41 AM