As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Games without early reviews = bad?

xboxxerxboxxer Registered User regular
edited May 2007 in Games and Technology
Hey,

I'm interested in Forza 2 for the 360, despite the demo being a bit meh. I'm actually considering getting the wireless wheel to complete the experience. However, despite the game coming out this week, I can't find any early reviews for it. This makes me a bit nervous.

The same thing with Shadowrun ... no reviews despite an imminent release.

And Spiderman 3 a few weeks ago, where the trailers looked amazing, and the reviews were pretty atrocious.

However, I haven't really followed many games at release lately (usually willing to wait for a price drop), so I'm not sure if this is par for the course, or a meaningful observation.

I seem to recall reading Wii:Twilight Princess reviews pretty early, and getting stoked to get the game early.

So in you experience, is it fair to assume that if a triple-A game does NOT have any early reviews up, that it's likely the game is going to be, if not actually bad, at least disappointing?

If so, that spells badness for both Forza 2 and Shadowrun.

PSN: Entair / XBLive: White Seraph
xboxxer on

Posts

  • etoychestetoychest Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Sometimes they don't get builds out to the press until late, but more often than not the pub gives press an embargo date saying we can't pub until X date at X time. This is sometimes so that a magazine can be given an exclusive and we have to wait until that issue is in the mail. I wouldn't worry TOO much yet.

    etoychest on
  • xboxxerxboxxer Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Oh, that makes sense. Thanks for the quick reply. So there's still hope that Forza2 and Shadowrun will be awesome ... cool. The Spiderman 3 fiasco was so ... disappointing.

    BTW, awesome sig, fellow Sabres fan. Bummer about the Senators this year.

    xboxxer on
    PSN: Entair / XBLive: White Seraph
  • Vert1Vert1 Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I don't know much about the game but my friend's brother apparently worked on it. He said they downgraded the game's graphics for a solid framerate. He had good things to say about it but I'd wait till it comes out before putting down any cash on it.

    I saw an EBGAMES/Gamestop employee let someone try out a game on their store console. Maybe you could that pulled off too...

    Vert1 on
    blood_berry_new.jpg
    Sleep wrote: »
    Vert1 wrote: »
    I'd like to ask everyone here one question. What is a game?

    A lower form of sex.
  • darleysamdarleysam On my way to UKRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    i suppose this kind of thing is where Dennis Dyack's comments come into play again, asking for a more controlled release system. That way, the developers get time to finish a game, and then the media engine kicks in, review copies are sent out well before release, and publicity can be built up as necessary, and then the game is released.

    darleysam on
    forumsig.png
  • bruinbruin Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    The British OXM gave it 9/10 and Famitsu gave it 9, 9, 9, 9. That's a pretty rare score from Famitsu.

    bruin on
  • StupornautStupornaut Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Basically I'd be happy with Forza 1 + similar/better physics & AI + moderately-improved 60 FPS graphics + extra online features + completely berserk upgrades to the livery editor (seriously), and by most accounts that's what Forza 2 is. There'll probably be more than a few reviews that're all "tracks are boring + graphics are disappointing + no Veyron = 7.5" but I'll take super-advanced physics/gameplay with just-adequate graphics over vice-versa.

    Also, non-Burnout/Mario Kart/NFS racing games are still relatively marginalized and don't get the massive advance-review hype that a lot of other titles in the JRPG or FPS genres do. I wouldn't worry too much.

    Stupornaut on

    Stupornaut.jpg
  • RookRook Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    bruin wrote: »
    The British OXM gave it 9/10 and Famitsu gave it 9, 9, 9, 9. That's a pretty rare score from Famitsu.

    I thought everyone realised that Famitsu's scores are largely rubbish.

    Rook on
  • AggroChanAggroChan __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2007
    bruin wrote: »
    The British OXM gave it 9/10 and Famitsu gave it 9, 9, 9, 9. That's a pretty rare score from Famitsu.
    It would've gotten a perfect 40 if it was titled Final Fantasy Motorsport 2.

    AggroChan on
    PSN + Zune :>
    Sillender.jpgSillender.png
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Rook wrote: »
    bruin wrote: »
    The British OXM gave it 9/10 and Famitsu gave it 9, 9, 9, 9. That's a pretty rare score from Famitsu.

    I thought everyone realised that Famitsu's scores are largely rubbish.

    You're right, I remember there was the article done that revealed that Famitsu often gives high scores to games they think will sell well, to keep the companies happy or somesuch.

    cloudeagle on
    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • StupornautStupornaut Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    I remember there was the article done that revealed that Famitsu often gives high scores to games they think will sell well

    But Forza 2 is a 360 title. ;-)

    Stupornaut on

    Stupornaut.jpg
  • AshcroftAshcroft LOL The PayloadRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    AggroChan wrote: »
    bruin wrote: »
    The British OXM gave it 9/10 and Famitsu gave it 9, 9, 9, 9. That's a pretty rare score from Famitsu.
    It would've gotten a perfect 40 if it was titled Final Fantasy Motorsport 2.

    I think you mean Zelda Motorsport. Not that 36 is that rare a score anyway.

    Ashcroft on
    ZD98Zka.png
  • AroducAroduc regular
    edited May 2007
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Rook wrote: »
    bruin wrote: »
    The British OXM gave it 9/10 and Famitsu gave it 9, 9, 9, 9. That's a pretty rare score from Famitsu.

    I thought everyone realised that Famitsu's scores are largely rubbish.

    You're right, I remember there was the article done that revealed that Famitsu often gives high scores to games they think will sell well, to keep the companies happy or somesuch.

    Wait.

    WAIT.

    You're saying that it scores games well that it thinks are going to be highly popular?

    THOSE ASSHOLES.

    Aroduc on
  • Gaming-ModuleGaming-Module Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Aroduc wrote: »

    You're saying that it scores games well that it thinks are going to be highly popular?

    THOSE ASSHOLES.

    Well, that's kind of not what they're supposed to do. Irrespective of how well they think or are told a game will sell, a reviewer, ideally, is supposed to provide an objective review of a game based on their experience playing it, and nothing more. I don't even like the way Gamespot does their reviews, where everything is on the same scale, i.e. when they review a Live Arcade game they are comparing it to the quality of the big releases, at least that's the impression that I get, even though it's a game that you're paying $3-10 for.

    I think the reverse of this is what Game Informer did with Paper Mario TTYD, where they gave it a scathing review and explained that, "That's how we felt our average reader would feel about it so that's how we reviewed it." Again, a reviewer is supposed to base what he says on his experience with the game. If I wanted my beliefs and opinions validated, I would frequent a church, get deeply involved with a political party or bounce things off of my mother.

    Gaming-Module on
  • RedShellRedShell Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Aroduc wrote: »

    You're saying that it scores games well that it thinks are going to be highly popular?

    THOSE ASSHOLES.

    Well, that's kind of not what they're supposed to do. Irrespective of how well they think or are told a game will sell, a reviewer, ideally, is supposed to provide an objective review of a game based on their experience playing it, and nothing more. I don't even like the way Gamespot does their reviews, where everything is on the same scale, i.e. when they review a Live Arcade game they are comparing it to the quality of the big releases, at least that's the impression that I get, even though it's a game that you're paying $3-10 for.

    I think the reverse of this is what Game Informer did with Paper Mario TTYD, where they gave it a scathing review and explained that, "That's how we felt our average reader would feel about it so that's how we reviewed it." Again, a reviewer is supposed to base what he says on his experience with the game. If I wanted my beliefs and opinions validated, I would frequent a church, get deeply involved with a political party or bounce things off of my mother.

    The first and most important job of a reviewer is to answer the reader's question: am I going to like this?

    Which means that they factor price, series popularity, and genre popularity into the review. It would be a meaningless exercise if they didn't.

    RedShell on
    Homing In Imperfectly?
    Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
  • AroducAroduc regular
    edited May 2007
    Aroduc wrote: »

    You're saying that it scores games well that it thinks are going to be highly popular?

    THOSE ASSHOLES.

    Well, that's kind of not what they're supposed to do. Irrespective of how well they think or are told a game will sell, a reviewer, ideally, is supposed to provide an objective review of a game based on their experience playing it, and nothing more. I don't even like the way Gamespot does their reviews, where everything is on the same scale, i.e. when they review a Live Arcade game they are comparing it to the quality of the big releases, at least that's the impression that I get, even though it's a game that you're paying $3-10 for.

    I think the reverse of this is what Game Informer did with Paper Mario TTYD, where they gave it a scathing review and explained that, "That's how we felt our average reader would feel about it so that's how we reviewed it." Again, a reviewer is supposed to base what he says on his experience with the game. If I wanted my beliefs and opinions validated, I would frequent a church, get deeply involved with a political party or bounce things off of my mother.

    There are a couple counterarguments to be made here.

    A.) How well did that work out for Black and White again? Everybody was so amazed at what they were allowed to do and the engine and graphics and AI and etc etc etc and forgot "oh hey, this is a great engine, and a terrible game... also... literally uncompletable for a month or two after release."

    B.) It's really a rather elitist ivory tower affair to get into when you start saying that popular games aren't good games. Yes, there are games that are more popular than people on this board think they deserve to be, and those that are less, but holding yourself above the general populace and saying "these games may suit the common man, but not a real gamer" isn't exactly a particularly accurate way of reviewing games either.

    Aroduc on
  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Stupornaut wrote: »
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    I remember there was the article done that revealed that Famitsu often gives high scores to games they think will sell well

    But Forza 2 is a 360 title. ;-)
    Yeah, considering it's a Japanese mag.


    Does not compute.

    Der Waffle Mous on
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Aroduc wrote: »

    You're saying that it scores games well that it thinks are going to be highly popular?

    THOSE ASSHOLES.

    Well, that's kind of not what they're supposed to do. Irrespective of how well they think or are told a game will sell, a reviewer, ideally, is supposed to provide an objective review of a game based on their experience playing it, and nothing more. I don't even like the way Gamespot does their reviews, where everything is on the same scale, i.e. when they review a Live Arcade game they are comparing it to the quality of the big releases, at least that's the impression that I get, even though it's a game that you're paying $3-10 for.

    I think the reverse of this is what Game Informer did with Paper Mario TTYD, where they gave it a scathing review and explained that, "That's how we felt our average reader would feel about it so that's how we reviewed it." Again, a reviewer is supposed to base what he says on his experience with the game. If I wanted my beliefs and opinions validated, I would frequent a church, get deeply involved with a political party or bounce things off of my mother.

    There are a couple counterarguments to be made here.

    A.) How well did that work out for Black and White again? Everybody was so amazed at what they were allowed to do and the engine and graphics and AI and etc etc etc and forgot "oh hey, this is a great engine, and a terrible game... also... literally uncompletable for a month or two after release."

    B.) It's really a rather elitist ivory tower affair to get into when you start saying that popular games aren't good games. Yes, there are games that are more popular than people on this board think they deserve to be, and those that are less, but holding yourself above the general populace and saying "these games may suit the common man, but not a real gamer" isn't exactly a particularly accurate way of reviewing games either.

    Then the best way to do an objective review is to not factor in how popular the game will likely be at all./ Popular games can be great or shit, just like niche games can be great or shit. Best to let the game stand on its own.

    Note that's not the same as saying "people who like jrpgs might like this, all others stay away." Measuring accessability is different than measuring popularity.

    cloudeagle on
    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    http://kotaku.com/gaming/famitsu/famitsu-for-beginners-222494.php
    When Famitsu rates a game high, they do it out of respect for the readers -- avid players of Kingdom Hearts as most of them are. Avid players of Kingdom Hearts don't want to be told what Famitsu really thinks of their fucking piece of shit hobby. So Famitsu awards the "courtesy score" -- which used to be all nines and a ten, and is now all tens and a nine. When Famitsu KNOWS a game is going to sell 2 million copies in a week regardless of what they say, this is what they do.
    It would be the equivalent of giving the 50 Cents gameor every single Madden game no matter how shoddy that year's game is a 8 out of ten.

    http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2007/01/column_game_mag_weaseling_the_2.php
    - In the September 1, 2006 issue, one of the reviewers for horror/adventure game Ayakashibito criticized a section of the game's play system that didn't actually exist. In response to this, developer Propellor wrote on its staff weblog that "we don't mind being told straight up that the game's not fun -- just don't try to back up that logic with points that don't exist in realisty."

    Couscous on
  • RookRook Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Aroduc wrote: »

    You're saying that it scores games well that it thinks are going to be highly popular?

    THOSE ASSHOLES.

    Well, that's kind of not what they're supposed to do. Irrespective of how well they think or are told a game will sell, a reviewer, ideally, is supposed to provide an objective review of a game based on their experience playing it, and nothing more. I don't even like the way Gamespot does their reviews, where everything is on the same scale, i.e. when they review a Live Arcade game they are comparing it to the quality of the big releases, at least that's the impression that I get, even though it's a game that you're paying $3-10 for.

    I think the reverse of this is what Game Informer did with Paper Mario TTYD, where they gave it a scathing review and explained that, "That's how we felt our average reader would feel about it so that's how we reviewed it." Again, a reviewer is supposed to base what he says on his experience with the game. If I wanted my beliefs and opinions validated, I would frequent a church, get deeply involved with a political party or bounce things off of my mother.

    There are a couple counterarguments to be made here.

    A.) How well did that work out for Black and White again? Everybody was so amazed at what they were allowed to do and the engine and graphics and AI and etc etc etc and forgot "oh hey, this is a great engine, and a terrible game... also... literally uncompletable for a month or two after release."

    B.) It's really a rather elitist ivory tower affair to get into when you start saying that popular games aren't good games. Yes, there are games that are more popular than people on this board think they deserve to be, and those that are less, but holding yourself above the general populace and saying "these games may suit the common man, but not a real gamer" isn't exactly a particularly accurate way of reviewing games either.


    B) it's not really sure the elitest arguement works on any scale when it comes to any media. Spiderman 3 may have had had a bigger opening weekend than any other film in his history, but that says nothing about the quality of the film, only of the marketing campaign behind the film. Enter the matrix may have sold fantastically, but again that has nothing to do with the game, only the marketing strategy behind it.

    What you're not counting is whether the people that go out and "buy" the game or "see" the film actually think it's any good, which is surely the entire point behind a review.

    Rook on
  • AroducAroduc regular
    edited May 2007
    Rook wrote: »
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Aroduc wrote: »

    You're saying that it scores games well that it thinks are going to be highly popular?

    THOSE ASSHOLES.

    Well, that's kind of not what they're supposed to do. Irrespective of how well they think or are told a game will sell, a reviewer, ideally, is supposed to provide an objective review of a game based on their experience playing it, and nothing more. I don't even like the way Gamespot does their reviews, where everything is on the same scale, i.e. when they review a Live Arcade game they are comparing it to the quality of the big releases, at least that's the impression that I get, even though it's a game that you're paying $3-10 for.

    I think the reverse of this is what Game Informer did with Paper Mario TTYD, where they gave it a scathing review and explained that, "That's how we felt our average reader would feel about it so that's how we reviewed it." Again, a reviewer is supposed to base what he says on his experience with the game. If I wanted my beliefs and opinions validated, I would frequent a church, get deeply involved with a political party or bounce things off of my mother.

    There are a couple counterarguments to be made here.

    A.) How well did that work out for Black and White again? Everybody was so amazed at what they were allowed to do and the engine and graphics and AI and etc etc etc and forgot "oh hey, this is a great engine, and a terrible game... also... literally uncompletable for a month or two after release."

    B.) It's really a rather elitist ivory tower affair to get into when you start saying that popular games aren't good games. Yes, there are games that are more popular than people on this board think they deserve to be, and those that are less, but holding yourself above the general populace and saying "these games may suit the common man, but not a real gamer" isn't exactly a particularly accurate way of reviewing games either.


    B) it's not really sure the elitest arguement works on any scale when it comes to any media. Spiderman 3 may have had had a bigger opening weekend than any other film in his history, but that says nothing about the quality of the film, only of the marketing campaign behind the film. Enter the matrix may have sold fantastically, but again that has nothing to do with the game, only the marketing strategy behind it.

    What you're not counting is whether the people that go out and "buy" the game or "see" the film actually think it's any good, which is surely the entire point behind a review.

    Popularity and sales numbers are not two completely independant variables. The better a game is, the better it will sell, and the shittier a game is, the shittier it will sell. Yes, there are a few exceptions like Psychonauts or Enter the Matrix, they do not prove trends. For every one 'genius' game that sold poorly, there are a couple hundred crappy games that sold poorly and the inverse is also true. You can't seperate the two things and say that one doesn't influence the other.

    Aroduc on
  • RookRook Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Rook wrote: »
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Aroduc wrote: »

    You're saying that it scores games well that it thinks are going to be highly popular?

    THOSE ASSHOLES.

    Well, that's kind of not what they're supposed to do. Irrespective of how well they think or are told a game will sell, a reviewer, ideally, is supposed to provide an objective review of a game based on their experience playing it, and nothing more. I don't even like the way Gamespot does their reviews, where everything is on the same scale, i.e. when they review a Live Arcade game they are comparing it to the quality of the big releases, at least that's the impression that I get, even though it's a game that you're paying $3-10 for.

    I think the reverse of this is what Game Informer did with Paper Mario TTYD, where they gave it a scathing review and explained that, "That's how we felt our average reader would feel about it so that's how we reviewed it." Again, a reviewer is supposed to base what he says on his experience with the game. If I wanted my beliefs and opinions validated, I would frequent a church, get deeply involved with a political party or bounce things off of my mother.

    There are a couple counterarguments to be made here.

    A.) How well did that work out for Black and White again? Everybody was so amazed at what they were allowed to do and the engine and graphics and AI and etc etc etc and forgot "oh hey, this is a great engine, and a terrible game... also... literally uncompletable for a month or two after release."

    B.) It's really a rather elitist ivory tower affair to get into when you start saying that popular games aren't good games. Yes, there are games that are more popular than people on this board think they deserve to be, and those that are less, but holding yourself above the general populace and saying "these games may suit the common man, but not a real gamer" isn't exactly a particularly accurate way of reviewing games either.


    B) it's not really sure the elitest arguement works on any scale when it comes to any media. Spiderman 3 may have had had a bigger opening weekend than any other film in his history, but that says nothing about the quality of the film, only of the marketing campaign behind the film. Enter the matrix may have sold fantastically, but again that has nothing to do with the game, only the marketing strategy behind it.

    What you're not counting is whether the people that go out and "buy" the game or "see" the film actually think it's any good, which is surely the entire point behind a review.

    Popularity and sales numbers are not two completely independant variables. The better a game is, the better it will sell, and the shittier a game is, the shittier it will sell. Yes, there are a few exceptions like Psychonauts or Enter the Matrix, they do not prove trends. For every one 'genius' game that sold poorly, there are a couple hundred crappy games that sold poorly and the inverse is also true. You can't seperate the two things and say that one doesn't influence the other.

    One would argue that popularity and sales are EXACTLY the same terms :p

    If you meant quality, then there was actually a guy who made the point recently (and I forget who it was, it was someone from a publisher or developer) that if you look at sales compared to review scores, there's pretty much no correlation. I'll try and find the link.

    edit: can't find exactly what I was thinking of, or my memory is fuzzy, but here's a better one
    http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3837&Itemid=2
    The report found that, “After going through multiple scenarios, we believe a game rating, in most cases, is not a reliable tool for predicting game sales. There are isolated examples of strong correlation, but they are just that – isolated. We believe a naked game rating without context is largely useless. The more specific the comparison (controlling for as many variables as possible), the more likely a statistically significant correlation may exist. However, the more specific the sample, the less useful the hypothesis becomes.”

    The report goes on, “The notion that game ratings might have very little to do with game sales touches a nerve. And, no wonder – for whatever reason, many investors have learned to rely on them. Game ratings can affect developer compensation and are the raison d’être of an industry in which anyone with a game console and a domain name can throw a review onto a web site.”

    More in link.

    Rook on
  • devoirdevoir Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    darleysam wrote: »
    i suppose this kind of thing is where Dennis Dyack's comments come into play again, asking for a more controlled release system. That way, the developers get time to finish a game, and then the media engine kicks in, review copies are sent out well before release, and publicity can be built up as necessary, and then the game is released.

    I found this debate to be quite interesting, and I was very disappointed that a lot of game journalists seemed to get up in arms about in, especially the ones who had direct access to Dennis, simply because (it seemed) they felt their jobs were being threatened.

    Some of the folks from EGM, especially after the interview, had a good old time bashing Dennis when he had no avenue of reply, taking sections of his argument out of context and hammering on them in a fashion that did not seem constructive or mature.

    I don't know Dennis Dyack from Joe Bob, but I thought his comments on what was wrong with the game industry public relations were pretty insightful.

    devoir on
  • epburnepburn Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    They aren't game journalists. They're reviewers. I'm not being snarky at another forumer, but just grating at the idea that they would be considered journalists. I don't consider Roger Ebert a journalist, either.

    epburn on
  • etoychestetoychest Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    devoir wrote: »
    darleysam wrote: »
    i suppose this kind of thing is where Dennis Dyack's comments come into play again, asking for a more controlled release system. That way, the developers get time to finish a game, and then the media engine kicks in, review copies are sent out well before release, and publicity can be built up as necessary, and then the game is released.

    I found this debate to be quite interesting, and I was very disappointed that a lot of game journalists seemed to get up in arms about in, especially the ones who had direct access to Dennis, simply because (it seemed) they felt their jobs were being threatened.

    Some of the folks from EGM, especially after the interview, had a good old time bashing Dennis when he had no avenue of reply, taking sections of his argument out of context and hammering on them in a fashion that did not seem constructive or mature.

    I don't know Dennis Dyack from Joe Bob, but I thought his comments on what was wrong with the game industry public relations were pretty insightful.

    If you get a chance, you should checkout an interview Alistair Wallis did with him that was posted a few weeks ago, "The King Of Silicon Knights: Denis Dyack’s Quest For A New Game Biz". It's a very interesting read, even for those who are not totally sold on his ideas quite yet.

    etoychest on
  • AroducAroduc regular
    edited May 2007
    Rook wrote: »

    One would argue that popularity and sales are EXACTLY the same terms :p

    If you meant quality, then there was actually a guy who made the point recently (and I forget who it was, it was someone from a publisher or developer) that if you look at sales compared to review scores, there's pretty much no correlation. I'll try and find the link.

    edit: can't find exactly what I was thinking of, or my memory is fuzzy, but here's a better one
    http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3837&Itemid=2
    The report found that, “After going through multiple scenarios, we believe a game rating, in most cases, is not a reliable tool for predicting game sales. There are isolated examples of strong correlation, but they are just that – isolated. We believe a naked game rating without context is largely useless. The more specific the comparison (controlling for as many variables as possible), the more likely a statistically significant correlation may exist. However, the more specific the sample, the less useful the hypothesis becomes.”

    The report goes on, “The notion that game ratings might have very little to do with game sales touches a nerve. And, no wonder – for whatever reason, many investors have learned to rely on them. Game ratings can affect developer compensation and are the raison d’être of an industry in which anyone with a game console and a domain name can throw a review onto a web site.”

    More in link.


    I did mean quality... brainfart :P

    I'd love to see the numbers and methodology they used, especially since they say that they controlled for whether or not a game belongs to a franchise which I can see leading to some really fucked up results in either direction and it also potentially shrinks the entire pool of quality/popular games to everything that is a new IP... which is so not a valid pool of games to do an analysis on.

    Aroduc on
  • AggroChanAggroChan __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2007
    AggroChan on
    PSN + Zune :>
    Sillender.jpgSillender.png
  • KyouguKyougu Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    By the way, it was posted in the Shadowrun forums by a dev that final copies went out late to reviewers, and that scores should be appearing Monday or Tuesday.

    Kyougu on
  • DusdaDusda is ashamed of this post SLC, UTRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    So...Famitsu reviews are only to be trusted if the game isn't a long running Japanese title? That's more consistent than some places, I guess.

    Also, eToy, it is almost impossible to recognize you without the Nintengirls avatar.

    Dusda on
    and this sig. and this twitch stream.
  • etoychestetoychest Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Hehe, I may have to change back. I changed it originally because my wife sometimes posts here on my account, and I was trying to be all p.c. Then SHE asked me what happened to "that cool avatar I used to have?" So I may have to switch back.

    etoychest on
  • devoirdevoir Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    epburn wrote: »
    They aren't game journalists. They're reviewers. I'm not being snarky at another forumer, but just grating at the idea that they would be considered journalists. I don't consider Roger Ebert a journalist, either.

    Well, I see your point, but there are some sections of the gaming media who have been trying to elevate themselves beyond the simple "I've been playing games for ages, here's what I think about this game" mentality, tackling bigger issues, etc. I guess I've given some of them more credit than they are due, but I feel people like N'Gai Croal and some of the 1up staff (among others) do actually write and comment in a way that is approaching credible journalism.

    devoir on
  • RookRook Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Rook wrote: »

    One would argue that popularity and sales are EXACTLY the same terms :p

    If you meant quality, then there was actually a guy who made the point recently (and I forget who it was, it was someone from a publisher or developer) that if you look at sales compared to review scores, there's pretty much no correlation. I'll try and find the link.

    edit: can't find exactly what I was thinking of, or my memory is fuzzy, but here's a better one
    http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3837&Itemid=2
    The report found that, “After going through multiple scenarios, we believe a game rating, in most cases, is not a reliable tool for predicting game sales. There are isolated examples of strong correlation, but they are just that – isolated. We believe a naked game rating without context is largely useless. The more specific the comparison (controlling for as many variables as possible), the more likely a statistically significant correlation may exist. However, the more specific the sample, the less useful the hypothesis becomes.”

    The report goes on, “The notion that game ratings might have very little to do with game sales touches a nerve. And, no wonder – for whatever reason, many investors have learned to rely on them. Game ratings can affect developer compensation and are the raison d’être of an industry in which anyone with a game console and a domain name can throw a review onto a web site.”

    More in link.


    I did mean quality... brainfart :P

    I'd love to see the numbers and methodology they used, especially since they say that they controlled for whether or not a game belongs to a franchise which I can see leading to some really fucked up results in either direction and it also potentially shrinks the entire pool of quality/popular games to everything that is a new IP... which is so not a valid pool of games to do an analysis on.

    According to joystiq you can just e-mail the guys who did the work and they'll send you a copy of the report. Not entirely sure if that's acurate as you'd expect to be charged for something like that but it's probably worth a shot if you're interested.

    http://www.joystiq.com/2005/12/08/game-ratings-dont-matter/

    Also has a pretty picture.

    Rook on
Sign In or Register to comment.