Underbelly of reviews on display at The Escapist

by Justin McElroy { Jul 18th 2007 at 11:25AM }

There's a tired adage, we're sure you've heard it, it's something like the two things you don't want to watch being made are sausages and laws. A new feature at The Escapist has convinced us that you might just want to add review scores to that list. Plenty of industry luminaries weigh in on the subject, including Gabe from Penny Arcade, Jeff Green of Games for Windows Magazine and Warren Spector, but the real dirt comes from some more anonymous sources. Found within are stories of reviewers having to change scores to not upset editor's pals and others not even logging into games before reviewing them.

To emerge on the other side is to have a better understanding of how a review score is born and what it means to those whose lives are mixed up in it, but you may also not be able to look at that 7.5 the same way ever again. Consider yourself warned.

Tags: reviews, theescapist

Related From Joystiq

Analyst: Metacritic scores don't drive success
4 days ago
Commercial success dependent on 'more than just quality,' Divnich suggests
13 days ago
iPhone It In: Canabalt
19 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

hvnlysoldr @ Jul 18th 2007 11:45AM

I don't actually pay attention to scores. I barely retain anything out of the reviews either. I just like reading them sometimes. It's perfectly fine for me since I still don't buy games I know I want to play for quite a while usually.

Tony @ Jul 18th 2007 11:51AM

Numbered scores should be done away with entirely, in my opinion. There's a lot of reasons why I think this, but I won't bother getting into them... but this article kind of explains some of those reviews you read that do almost nothing but complain about a game, even for the oddest of things, and the game somehow still winds up with an 8.9.

chenry @ Jul 18th 2007 11:52AM

I just stick to metacritic. An aggregate score from lots of reviews, plus the min/max scores. I think that's way more useful than a single, 700-word review.

Jake @ Jul 18th 2007 11:52AM

You need one of two things.

1) A review publication that seems to have the same taste as you, and therefore will give you a good idea of how much you like the game.

2) Go to metacritic.com, or any other meta-review site. Read the overall number. It is the average of many different tastes and much more meaningful than a single good or bad score. If the score is over ninety it is a pretty safe buy. Under 75 is a pretty safe pass, unless you love sports games. Anything in between requires a little more work.

Then, and this is very important, read some of the highest and some of the lowest review paragraphs shown. See why you might really like the game or why you might really hate the game. People who give it middling scores don't have anything useful to say.

Sometimes with a game that has, say, a solid 85 review score you will see something written by the a-hole giving it a 6 that you have noticed in another game you hated but everyone else liked.

Case in point. I liked Resistance and disliked Motorstorm, even though both were reviewed as "good". I played both at my friend's house. I read the Motorstorm review later and could see a few things in its worst scores that I could really relate to and couldn't relate to the messages in its best scores.

I don't think I've ever played a game with a metascore above 90 that I didn't really like.

Jake @ Jul 18th 2007 11:55AM

Oh, to add to my process. Obviously if you hate RPG's you won't want Oblivion. If you love Madden, you'll get it regardless.

aegies @ Jul 18th 2007 12:53PM

Wow. Um, I'm pretty sure I know who the anonymous game reviewer is, who the editor is, who the developer is, and what the game was. And that would explain a lot of things.

CowboyGA @ Jul 18th 2007 1:36PM

Considering that Joystiq had a thread about it when it happened, I think many of us SHOULD remember it clearly. For those who don't, there is a search bar.

samfish @ Jul 18th 2007 12:56PM

I work in the trade publication industry (why, I'm supposed to be working now!), and I can see how this is all very likely true. The place I work for not only won't write bad things about a company (even if they're doing something pretty skeezy), but they'll even take their ads and run them in corresponding sections! It's a rampant practice in the industry in general, I've found.

Over the course of the last decade or so, it seems like journalism has really fallen victim to the whole, "if you don't say good things about us, we'll cut you off" threat.
It had ALWAYS been a bit of an issue (especially with games...I think it was EGM in the 80's who went up against Midway), but it seems like it's really crippled the news industry as a whole...from gaming mags to politics and newspapers.

CowboyGA @ Jul 18th 2007 1:38PM

With MetaCritic, you have to remember to toss out the bottom scores. Some of those review sites do nothing but bash games regardless of quality, and many of their reviews are so poorly written you have to wonder if they're even actual companies.

thispaceforsale @ Jul 18th 2007 1:54PM

genre-focused sites that offer reviews are a good idea. If you like rpgs, checking out what rpgamer, rpgfan or rpgland has reviewed a game at is a good idea.
Also, watching gameplay videos on gametrailers, or youtube is another good resource.
Then again, the less you pay for a game, the less critical you might be. So you can always wait for a game you might like to drop in price.

Rubang B @ Jul 18th 2007 3:49PM

No offense Joystiq, but...

"It's a bit like having sports commentators criticizing a fine art exhibition."

I think that's the perfect analogy of what we get when seasoned hardcore game reviewers end up reviewing games like Cooking Mama which they should never be touching anyway. I am NOT calling Cooking Mama fine art. I don't even like it. I'm just saying, it had a target audience and it served its purpose, and it made Majesco some money when they really needed it. See also: Wii Play, and all non-games.

Why do game reviewers review non-games anyway?