The industry chimes in on the importance of reviews for Wii games
by JC Fletcher 
{ Jun 18th 2009 at 9:35AM } 
Michael Pachter suggested that review scores aren't important because many Wii owners don't read reviews. ""I think that Metacritic scores are irrelevant for people who don't look at them - how's that for obvious?" Pachter said. "While there are many Wii owners who are hardcore and who care very much about scores, there are many - perhaps half - who are quite casual, and wouldn't know Metacritic if it fell on them." He offered games like Carnival Games and Jillian Michaels Fitness Ultimatum as examples of successful titles with little critical acclaim.
However, 2D Boy's Kyle Gabler offers an instance in which Metacritic scores and reviews do make a difference: indie games, like his own World of Goo, which happens to be the third highest-rated game on Wii. He compares mainstream games to Will Smith movies, which draw audiences without reviews.
"But for indie guys like us, Metacritic and review scores matter a lot," Gabler said. "In fact we link directly to them from our web site. So does Steam. It makes a lot of sense - potential players don't feel comfortable dishing out cash for some random unknown indie game without an aggregate thumbs-up from solid reviewers."
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Storm Eagle @ Jun 18th 2009 9:49AM
That's because the majority of Wii owners are new to the gaming biz and wouldn't know a decent video game if it sat on their face. They don't know what they're buying or what to look for in a good game. It's all "Oh! This looks like fun!" WRONG!
Cody @ Jun 18th 2009 10:09AM
Very non-elitist posting there, Storm Canary.
How dare those casuals enjoy the games they like!??!?!!?
Storm Eagle @ Jun 18th 2009 10:14AM
I'm not talking about the experience they actually get out of the game, I'm talking about the pre-purchase phase. When they're browsing the store shelf and pick up a copy of Anubis II or Dancing with the Stars even. No matter how much they enjoy the TV shows, those games are not going to be good. But as a new consumer, they don't know that. They haven't been exposed to such disasters like E.T. or Superman 64. They need to be educated and they need to be aware of what they're spending their hard-earned money on. Not just taking wild risks on some random purchase. I absolutely think everyone out there should research before they buy, or know something about who made the game before they buy another one of their titles. There's nothing elitist about it. It's common sense.
Cody @ Jun 18th 2009 11:03AM
I understand where YOU'RE coming from as an individual, however you cannot make this blanket statement: "No matter how much they enjoy the TV shows, those games are not going to be good."
Because all you're really saying is those games are not going to be good (in my opinion). Somebody somewhere is obviously getting enjoyment out of those titles. Unlike Superman 64, a title I wouldn't wish upon one of my greatest of enemies, tmac himself.
Ridgecity @ Jun 18th 2009 4:08PM
World Of Goo Looks interesting just from seeing the screenshots, EVERYONE loves puzzle games and this looks like a ton of fun, and of course it is, so ratings could have given it a 0 and it would have done well anyways, maybe not as big as it did, since hardcores bought this game also.
The main thing I see is most hardcores called the game "just ok" because they read the reviews calling it a masterpiece, I bought the game before the reviews started flowing and in reality they made it sound as the second coming of jesus. It's a fun game and being a small startup that made it, it does deserve praise, but internet hyping up something so much always creates a massive backlash.
Preston @ Jun 18th 2009 9:50AM
Metacritic is useless for people like me because an abstract number is utterly meaningless. I want an actual review detailing what the problems of a game are, how it handles and whether or not its plot makes sense. You know, useful information, as opposed to a score based on buzz words and hype. I dunno about anyone else that does this but I certainly don't identify myself as hardcore or casual, since those labels are largely silly.
Storm Eagle @ Jun 18th 2009 9:52AM
Metacritic provides direct links to all the reviews it pulls from. So you can read the positive reviews or the negative reviews of a game and see what they had to say exactly about it.
JXCgunrunna @ Jun 18th 2009 9:55AM
Metacritic is like the Wikipedia of game scores. it gives you the general consensus but actually links to something credible
Preston @ Jun 18th 2009 10:09AM
Yeah. . .I don't exactly hold Wikipedia in high regard either. :P
dark_inchworm (on Steam!) dark inchworm (on XBL!) @ Jun 18th 2009 10:28AM
I used to read reviews obsessively - back in the day, I would even read an issue of PC Gamer from the very first word to the very last, and this was when the magazine was 250+ pages. After a falling-out of sorts with PCG, I then migrated to reading Gamespot reviews. Then I just gave the fuck up and started making purchases based on scores... I grew somewhat weary of reading "the graphics were shiny" and "the controls were tight" over and over again.
I dunno about the rest of you, but I'm really not that picky; usually anything with an average of 70 or higher is purchase-worthy for me.
/cool story bro!
bongoes @ Jun 18th 2009 9:51AM
I think if casual gamers are told about the review scores and why the games get bad scores they can take them into account. An example, I look at reviews for most games but my family has never cared. My dad asked me about some game he thought looked interesting but I told him about the review scores and what the reviews said and he changed his mind.
JXCgunrunna @ Jun 18th 2009 9:53AM
same. My brothers are "hardcore" gamers. they have been playing over 10 years on every system from the snes on and they dont look at scores. ppl do tell them what was good in bad in a game but they dont go out of their way to look how a game did before buying it
JXCgunrunna @ Jun 18th 2009 9:51AM
im not a casual gamer and i feel the need to look at reviews before getting a game like world of goo or almost any indigame. about the only time i dont look at reviews is if its from a DEV(not publisher) i really trust and have played a few of their games in the past. Really the only other way i dont need to look at a review would be if theres a demo.
Poisoned Al @ Jun 18th 2009 9:52AM
tl;dr: People will by any old shit if you put it in a pretty box.
Roto13 @ Jun 18th 2009 12:51PM
You might want to get that ADD checked.
tmacairjordan87 @ Jun 18th 2009 9:55AM
So, to sum things up
Casuals don't look at reviews, and regular gamers do. Glad to see we all learned something new from this :P
uncle jesse @ Jun 18th 2009 10:04AM
That pretty much says it all.
I think indie games are the exception. People usually read about an indie game before downloading it. But then again, I don't know many casual or new gamers who even download games or know what any of them are. I've talked to some people who aren't regular gamers and they don't even know what WiiWare is or the Virtual Console, for that matter! They were amazed at how I was playing Excitebike on my Wii. So, basically it still agrees with what you said, tmac.
Bluebreaker @ Jun 18th 2009 9:56AM
Metacritic isn't JUST for games. They review movies, TV shows, books and music too. I'm surprised causal non gamers haven't heard of them first with that much reviewing power under their belt. They deal with criticism you know?
Preston @ Jun 18th 2009 10:07AM
Unfortunately the vast majority of reviewers don't actually know how to review anything. Instead they seem to think filling an article with hype and industry buzzwords is a valid substitute for one.
ChuckJ @ Jun 18th 2009 10:02AM
Anyone see this yet:
http://gizmodo.com/5295222/an-nes-controller-purchased-from-the-merchant-of-venice
This question could be asked a hundred times every day....what the hell is wrong with some people?!?!
Storm Eagle @ Jun 18th 2009 10:17AM
WHY!? The HORROR!
bongoes @ Jun 18th 2009 3:05PM
DO NOT MENTION THAT AGAIN!!!!!!
Feba @ Jun 18th 2009 10:08AM
It has nothing to do with video games. It has to do with humanity.
Most people will buy things based on commercials and what's on the box. If that doesn't convince them, a salesman will.
The other day, I saw a GameStop clerk telling someone that they HAD to buy a 4GB memory stick to watch movies on their PSP.
I've seen plenty of stores mislead people in computer sales.
And for longer than there have been computers, people have been getting themselves screwed when buying cars.
And before cars, there were other things that people spent money on without thinking.
By and large, most people don't research ANYTHING they buy, even the very large things. It has nothing to do with them not being 'one of us'; they're just stupid. The same thing happens in pretty much any other hobby; lots of people buy bad horses, buy bad pool tables, buy bad swimming pools, for no other reason than that they don't know how to research things before they buy them.
emagius @ Jun 18th 2009 12:09PM
It's pretty stupid to rely on online reviews -- gaming "journalists" are just fanboys with blogs. When's the last time you read a meaningful review of say, a Final Fantasy game? One that didn't just say "wow! awesome graphics! cool story! 100 hours of gameplay!"?
If a book (or even movie or music) reviewer churned out that kind of drivel, they'd be laughed out of a job.
Roto13 @ Jun 18th 2009 12:55PM
"If a book (or even movie or music) reviewer churned out that kind of drivel, they'd be laughed out of a job."
Books and movies and music are art. The vast, vast majority of games are not.
emagius @ Jun 18th 2009 1:25PM
How about, "If a board game reviewer churned out that kind of drivel, they'd be laughed out of a job", then? Still true (though professional board game reviewers are few and far between).
Chad Vanderbilt (Moptimus in Disguise) @ Jun 18th 2009 2:23PM
If a board game reviewer started talking about graphics and story, they wouldn't be fired.
They'd be locked up in the loony bin
R (XBL: Esoteric Lord) @ Jun 18th 2009 10:09AM
..."how's that for obvious?"
Sounds like Patcher has been reading some Joystiq comments, lol.
Vidikron @ Jun 18th 2009 10:14AM
Heh... that was my thought too.
BC @ Jun 18th 2009 10:13AM
I think all the dreadful reviews of EA Sports Grand Slam Tennis show that reviews are out of touch with the console and the people playing it.
A lot of the reviews go along the lines of that they couldn't get the hang of it, while all it takes is a bit of practice because using a racquet isn't meant to be easy, so they gave bad scores. Anyone who has stuck with it (or played tennis before) love it because it is an excellent game.
Kids games tend to be badly scored too because they review the game from a stand point of a older traditional gamer. Casual and lifestyle games get bad reviews too because the reviewer personally just doesn't go for it.
It's not all filler and crap. Some of it just isn't your cup of tea or the reviewers cup of tea. It's a brave new world we live in.
WREturns @ Jun 18th 2009 10:37AM
That's exactly the consensus I've arrived at. Reviewers need to understand that as the motion controls become more accurate, you might need to be a little more of a tennis player and a little less of a gamer to be good at realistic tennis games. It's not a bad thing, it's just different and they better get used to it because like it or not, that's the future.
WREturns @ Jun 18th 2009 10:33AM
I'm telling you the problem isn't that people don't look at reviews and then buy games they don't like, it's that people actually enjoy the crappy games that they do buy. My parents haven't purchased a gaming console since the NES, but my dad bought a Wii and they buy and thoroughly enjoy games like Jillian Michaels and Need for Speed: Undercover. Do I care? Not really. If it gets my folks into gaming, more power to them.
oldgamer @ Jun 18th 2009 10:39AM
I've been gaming ever since we bought the original pong game when it first came out in the early 70's. Since then I've had a ton of different systems / consoles. Right now I have literally thousands of games. I don't think I have ever once looked at a review score before buying a game (like Metacritic). True, I've gotten a few lemons during the years, but I've also got quite a few great games that the critics called junk (sometime I'll look up a game I already own just to see what the critics say, if I want a good laugh). I put absolutely ZERO trust in review scores. Why should I care less what one (or a few) critics think about a game. I know what kind of games I like, and what some critic thinks about it means nothing to me.
Now, that doesn't mean I don't research a game before buying it. The first thing I do is try and find a video of the actual game play (Youtube, Gamespot, etc...) and see what the game looks like in play. Sometimes I can only find a trailer, which is not as good as the game play, but better than nothing.
If I think I'm interested in the game, I might then read what other players say about it (I find that reviews by actual gamers are 100 times better than reviews by critics).
About the only critic reviews that I might give some credit to, are the video reviews where they show the game being played, and the critic is giving some pointers about this or that part of the game (and again, I prefer the Youtube, non-professional reviewers over the professional ones).
For the most part, I find that the professional reviewers are way to stuck on themselves and their opinions. They have certain mind sets that never change, and that effects every one of their reviews. If a game doesn't have such and such in it, it's garbage. If it has certain characteristics of this or that, than it's a great game.
Bringing this back to the point of this article, I think that Wii games, for the most part, don't have those usual characteristics that most of these critics consider good or necessary, so very often they will call a good Wii game bad. That is why they can't understand why some Wii games are so popular in spite of their bad reviews. They can't grasp the fact that everyday Joe, or John's mom actually enjoy a game that they don't like.
Jason Statham (Aka Vegeta) @ Jun 18th 2009 10:53AM
It's all about advertising, and the problem is is that many of these developers are just hoping that the hardcore consumer picks these games up instead of trying to reach out to the casual consumer. I'm sure if MadWorld had ads on Adultswim or on any other late night progamming, I guarantee that it would have done so much better.
Sure good reviews could help, but they really aren't necessary as we've seen countless times in different forms of media that if you can convince people that this is the hot new item they need to buy, then they'll buy it (I'm looking at you Twiight).
Rob @ Jun 18th 2009 11:31AM
I agree, if they had better marketing they would do a whole lot better. All the good reviews in the world won't save you if your marketing stinks.
Mr Khan @ Jun 18th 2009 11:40AM
MadWorld actually did have a solid advertising campaign, mostly centered around Comedy Central's prime-time lineup
Azariel_z @ Jun 18th 2009 12:29PM
@oldgamer, really really nice+ comment, I share the same point of view on this matter of "reviews"..
Let the people play and talk later!
Richard @ Jun 18th 2009 11:48AM
I use Metacritic all the time because I cannot afford to buy games on a whim and pray that it's any good. Having seen the collections of my friends who can do that, they have some real stinkers.
Metacritic isn't perfect because it cannot account for everyones tastes (eg. I thought Metroid was rubbish, far prefer HL2 on my PC), but its the best possible indicator currently available that what you're buying isn't going to end up not being played.
The lowest scored game I have is Kororinpa because a friend had it and i loved it. That goes to show that Metacritic gets it occasionally wrong - but on the other hand, most of the games I have are in the top 30 and I think I got a good deal for my money (with the exception of Metroid).
Mr Khan @ Jun 18th 2009 11:42AM
Reviews are only important if you have faith in the reviewers, too. There's more than a fair few gamers (like me), who lost all faith in the majority of sources in their ability to dictate to them.
As Wii, and the Wii style of gaming gains ground, the game journalists will either have to adapt, or see that faith whither across the board
Benjamin Heckendorn @ Jun 18th 2009 11:59AM
All that matters is marketing. If a game looks pretty or involves some TV show they like, the public will buy it. The FMV games of the 90's got terrible notices, but I enjoyed them for the B-movie cheese factor.
Reviews don't mean anything. If they did, nobody would have gone to see Paul Blart: Mall Cop and Iron Giant would have made more than Lion King. For those of us who care it will guide our purchase, but we are the minority.
I'm not sure about gaming critics, but people who review movies are usually just trying to claw their way into the industry or get a book deal. Why else would they use 5 dollar words every other line and make everything an analogy to the War on Terror?
LordToastington @ Jun 18th 2009 12:19PM
That Paul Blart film was atrocious.
shadowbender @ Jun 18th 2009 12:01PM
Aaaargh!
These people annoy the crap out of me. "Yeah! Yeah! I wanna get fit!" These idiots aren't even passionate about what they play!
xera077 @ Jun 18th 2009 12:28PM
Metacritic is broken.
Why? Because there are still reviewers like Eurogamer and sometimes Game Informer who make a mockery of how to a review a game.
And that stupid AV Club needs to go away.
Roto13 @ Jun 18th 2009 12:57PM
I'd love to have a way to disable reviews from certain sources (Gamespot, IGN, etc.) and just have a custom aggregate score of reviews you actually trust. Or at least don't explicitly distrust.
CrossTheAtlantic @ Jun 18th 2009 3:59PM
Hey! The AV Club is awesome!
Though I never read their game reviews; probably rubbish.
And if you're going to start picking and choosing what can be on Metacritic, then what's the point of Metacritic?
Metacritic IS broken, though, in that different publications scores are weighed differently although no one knows who or how.
Roto13 @ Jun 18th 2009 7:32PM
"And if you're going to start picking and choosing what can be on Metacritic, then what's the point of Metacritic?"
More like what's the point of Metacritic when people whose reviews you don't trust have as much weight as those you do?
guttertalk @ Jun 18th 2009 12:39PM
Some folks seem to overlook that marketing is a means of cracking people's awareness of a new game and to equate marketing as for the weak minded.
Look, if you don't follow gaming sites, forums, and blogs, you might not know about new games unless you see an ad somewhere. It's why the idea that reviews scores don't matter is a certain amount of b.s. I know some people buy on whim or without looking at reviews, but if they don't know about a game, they definitely won't look up review scores.
Indie gamers who rely primarily on reviews are relying on a rather select group of people--those who cruise metacritic or game sites for new reviews. Sure, word of mouth might follow and help an indie game succeed. But to be honest, indie game development is a risk in itself for that reason, especially as indie development grows. It's the problem of too much competition to get noticed on the cheap.
Also, these comments confuse huge marketing budgets and campaigns with well designed ones. If you design for a certain market, you might not need millions in marketing. Know your audience. If you don't, then you're in for a rough time.
And quite frankly, what I've seen of much marketing for 3rd party Wii games, they've sucked. They've looked awful or uninteresting. "But I spent millions!" Uh, so?
Finally, welcome to the world of consumer goods.
Matias @ Jun 18th 2009 1:28PM
I think casual care more about scores than the hardcore, because hardcore spend more time playing games, and know how to choose a good one, and know how biased or unfair most scores are, and only read reviews to see what's the game about and stuff like that, but I think most of them base their decisions in the company, devs, gameplay videos, etc.
Unlike casuals, that buy what they hear it's good or what they see on tv or magazines. That's why scores and marketing is more important with the casual demographic,and by extension the wii, wich is more focused to that crew (and still has enough hardcore audience that buys some of the better games, if it didn't, I doubt companies would even try to release a hardcore or niche game on the wii).
Note that when I say hardcore I'm talking about the time they use to play, and their skill, not the quality of the games (though they usually are related, because casual don't care about polish as much as they care about mindless fun, wich is perfectly fine and good).
Considering how much money companies would win, they should do more advertising, Nintendo could help a bit them though, because some 3rd party are little companies that can't afford a big advertising campaign like ubisoft or nintendo.
shadowbender @ Jun 19th 2009 2:09PM
Here is the psychology of casual gamers that look at only ads and not reviews:
"Oh, look at that! That looks so fun! Look at the super-fit woman on the cover! I could be like that. And when Grandma comes to town, it'll get her off her off the couch. Then I can brag to my friends that I am sooo in shape. I couldn't care less about the graphics or the quality of the game, I just want exercise! I hope I can figure out how to put the disc in the system...Oh, dang! I haven't even set up the system yet! I guess I forgot. Maybe I can call Nin...how do you pronounce it?--N-i-n-t-e-n-d-o? Maybe I can call Nin...tendo Support to give me directions on how to set up the game system. I just want to get fit. I'll look amazing...This could be great. I'll buy it!"
This is the mind of an idiot who doesn't know the first thing about gaming.