| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (34)

Posted: Jul 6th 2010 8:35PM Acosta02 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
" that the relationship between video game sales and professional review scores are not correlative but causal."

CASUALS?!

/jk
Reply

Posted: Jul 7th 2010 3:10AM Regault said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Acosta02

Yes, casual.

Anyone who's played games for more than a few months realizes most game reviewers have less credibility than Access Hollywood.
Reply

Posted: Jul 6th 2010 8:38PM CyberAly said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Makes sense. Often i'll have a review buzzing around in my head while I play a game, and i'll be looking out for the things they pointed out. While there are of course some games which are just bad, it's always worth bearing in mind that you need to have your own opinion, and maybe what the reviewers are looking for isn't what you're looking for.

Still, it's hard to do, you can't try the game before you buy it (with most games), and even if you hated it after playing it, the publisher still sees that as a sale, so they automatically think you loved it.
Reply

Posted: Jul 6th 2010 9:03PM armageddon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@CyberAly I too look for things critics say but often don't find what they complain about.
Reply

Posted: Jul 6th 2010 8:41PM The angry pro consumer gaming ga said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
There are plenty of games that are not worth $60 though there are quite a few that do earn that prestige.
Reply

Posted: Jul 6th 2010 8:52PM AutobotIronhide said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Notably Super Mario Galaxy 2. Sorry, I just had to say that. This game is amazing.
Reply

Posted: Jul 6th 2010 8:53PM AutobotIronhide said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Crap, just realized that it's $49.99. I say it's worth $60.
Reply

Posted: Jul 6th 2010 9:26PM CaptainProtonX said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@The angry pro consumer gaming ga

SMG2 is worth Shigeru Miyamoto's weight in gold.
Reply

Posted: Jul 6th 2010 8:49PM McDuckScrooged said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Really ? No shit sherlock.. Whats the first thing anyone does before buying anything ? Take a look at the review scores or the review it gives you a quick quantifiable analysis of the game in question ..

The vast majority of us are swayed by opinions its our nature its the way we are, I am sure the sheldon coopers in the joystiq audience however are far more clinical in their approach.
Reply

Posted: Jul 6th 2010 9:02PM BigFat IsBack said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@McDuckScrooged

what was so obvious about there report? Did you really predict that people who read high metacritic scores before hand rated the game in question very higher then they actually were?

this is by no means a no sh*t sherlock moment.
Reply

Posted: Jul 6th 2010 9:13PM McDuckScrooged said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@BigFat IsBack to quote myself:

"The vast majority of us are swayed by opinions its our nature its the way we are, I am sure the sheldon coopers in the joystiq audience however are far more clinical in their approach."

So yes I already figured this, how do you think we form biased opinions ?
Reply

Posted: Jul 6th 2010 9:24PM monster215 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@McDuckScrooged I agree with BigFat IsBack. The report looks like it handles some good information. Plus, it seems like the study wasn't done so much for the consumer's benefit, but the critics' benefit/understanding and the developer and publisher's strategy. We, the every day consumer, know how we go about buying games, but for publishers, it proves the importance of working with media outlets and critics on improving their games. For media outlets, like Joystiq, it reinforces the importance of thorough and honest reviews. And for us, the consumers, the study highlights the most important thing for everyone, which is developers need to listen to the reviews and criticisms of the product, and in the end make a better product.

Marketing and Research 101.

oh yeah, and obvious troll is obvious.
Reply

Posted: Jul 6th 2010 9:43PM McDuckScrooged said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@monster215 its called pointing out the obvious anyone with half a brain cell would have already known this, they just proved it that's all..

Hence why the no shit sherlock remark..



Reply

Posted: Jul 6th 2010 8:57PM Voshempa said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Maybe next time they'll do research to see if price is a factor in a purchase...
Reply

Posted: Jul 6th 2010 9:15PM Puertoricarious said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"because nearly twice as many participants in the high review group took the copy ... that the relationship between video game sales and professional review scores are not correlative but causal."

as a person in the field of research, this statement makes me sad. the amount of increase/incidence in one variable has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with causality. people in the high review could have been 300x as likely to take the copy, that still doesn't mean it's a causal relationship. the ONLY way to prove that something is causal is to design a study so well that all other variables have been eliminated, so that any change in incidence can be directly attributed to any causal factor.

to illustrate this with a ridiculous example: if you studied the link between a person wearing a red t-shirt and and his/her breathing, you'd find that 100% of all people wearing red t-shirts also happen to breathe. this is an extremely high correlation, but it doesn't mean that wearing a t-shirt causes you to breathe.
Reply

Posted: Jul 6th 2010 9:26PM Esposch said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Puertoricarious
Um, dood.
They showed people a high score, low score, and no score - all the different types.

It's like if they made people wear all the different colours of t-shirts, and then none at all.
Reply

Posted: Jul 6th 2010 9:45PM Puertoricarious said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Puertoricarious

it still doesn't imply causation.

i'll give a better (and more reasonable example). let's say that you wanted to study the link between race and religion. let's say (making this up, no idea if these number have any basis in reality) that the study finds that 43 percent of caucasians engage in a weekly religious ritual, 44% for african americans, 39% for latinos, and 28% for asians. in this study, caucasians are significantly more likely than asians to engage in a religious ritual every week, but does that mean that the status of caucasian race CAUSES you to be religious? absolutely not. correlation does not prove causation.

in the statement that i quoted, the authors of this video game study basically say that a very high correlation = causation. that's just simply not true.
Reply

Posted: Jul 6th 2010 9:55PM grab said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Puertoricarious

What a clown. It is very hard to believe your claim that you work in research. The difference between this study and the examples you have given is that in this study the experimenters actually manipulated the independent variable (meta review scores), then subsequently found that the groups differed on the dependent variable (their own ratings).

Of course you could argue whether or not extraneous variables were adequately controlled for, or whether it was a proper randomised control design, but fundamentally they have a very good case to say that their results infer that being exposed to higher metareview scores caused participants to subsequently rate the game higher themselves.

You are an embarrassment to science :)
Reply

Posted: Jul 6th 2010 10:25PM Puertoricarious said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@grab

except that i'm not actually arguing the results of the study. if the results of the study conclude that review scores affect purchase intent, i'd agree with you that the study design holds well enough to that.

but when they go so far as to claim that the extent of the correlation proves causality, they're just plain wrong. the only way to prove causality is to eliminate extraneous variables so that the only thing that can possibly be affecting a change in y is a change x.

you say i'm a clown and an embarassment, and yet you 1) can't actually even figure out my point and argue against a claim that i never made and 2) resort to immature name-calling. if you decide to be a bit mature and actually read what i'm typing, then i'm all ears about your input.
Reply

Posted: Jul 6th 2010 11:11PM jah75157 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Puertoricarious NERDS!
Reply

Posted: Jul 6th 2010 11:18PM jah75157 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Puertoricarious

JK about my earlier NERDS! comment (kinda), but I take it you two arguing would know. Wouldn't this need to be done with multiple games for it to be an actual comprehensive study? Wouldn't they need a game like that horrible bionic commando game that they made, and do the same study.
Reply

Posted: Jul 7th 2010 3:09AM Courtney said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Puertoricarious

Just to point out, for someone so dedicated to this subject, you're making an awful lot of assumptions about the quality of this work based on a summary by Joystiq. You could, quite literally, just be arguing semantics, a poorly worded concluding sentence, or a quote that's missing context.

Aren't you committing a similar mistake by jumping to conclusions without having actually had a chance to see the full report?
Reply

Posted: Jul 6th 2010 9:29PM Esposch said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Anyway, this stufy doesn't surprise me at all.
GTA4 proved their theory right 2 years ago.
Reply

Posted: Jul 6th 2010 9:51PM Solar Jetman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well, all very interesting, and no I haven't RTFA. But it all seems to reaffirm several already unassailable truths.
1. People are more likely to trust the opinions of people they trust.
2. Professional critics and reviewers are part of a longstanding profession that still exists because they provide a meaningful service to consumers and devotees of all stripes.
3. A good review and a good demo make people want to play a good video game more than any one thing does individually.

For anyone who did RTFA, was there something I missed?
Reply

Posted: Jul 6th 2010 9:59PM Esposch said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Solar Jetman
Yeah, it's that if people read a good review before they play the game they'll think it's better than if they read a bad review.
Reply

Posted: Jul 6th 2010 11:56PM Tezz said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
what if some of those people were like ill take the 10 bucks and pirate the game. they just made 10 bucks.

or for a legal reason, maybe they thought they could buy that game for on sale somewhere else.
Reply

Posted: Jul 7th 2010 12:38AM rajendra82 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I can easily imagine why the people who were shown the higher review scores were more likely to purchase the game after the 20 minute session Imagine you are part of the group being told "you are about to have one of the best meals in the world", and then given just the soup. Will you then be more or less likely to stay and pay for the rest of the meal than the group having had the same soup but being told "here is a meal that wasn't the best, but was liked by some". Of course, if I am expecting a great meal, I am more likely going to stay, and pay for it. This study should not have stopped after 20 minutes of game play. Instead they should have let everyone play the game to completion and then asked them about their experience. There probably would have been some preferential behavior by the high review score group (due to them wanting to agree with what they had heard before), but the spread would not have been quite as large, because they would not have imagined what the rest of the game was going to be.
Reply

Posted: Jul 7th 2010 12:58AM Geo Holyhart said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@rajendra82

If played to completion they wouldn't have any incentive to take the game instead of the $10. I agree though, 20mins is way too little. At least an hour or a little more of play.
Reply

Posted: Jul 7th 2010 1:44AM Dlord said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Um... Duh?
Reply

Posted: Jul 7th 2010 3:58AM delicatessen lama said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Didn't a study last year say review scores don't matter? I guess it depends on who does their research. I'd say these guys are right. The review-focused customer will then talk about a game to their friends. Thats what I did. Review scores do lie though.. like with that game that was really popular last month...
Reply

Posted: Jul 7th 2010 4:12AM Milky1985 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This makes sense but is basic human physcology nothing more. High review score means higher perceived value. They could cause the same effect by telling people the price before they played it (with a low, medium and high price), the higher price group would be much more likely to say that it was a better game.

Its all perceived value.

Unfortantly this is abused with the way reviews and publisher work (not sending out review copies to peopel who don't give good scores, review embargos etc) and the current scoring system is broken beyong beliefe (with a7/10 being the average score, hell even that is being considered bad now). Game reviews need a reboot.
Reply

Posted: Jul 7th 2010 7:07AM TheDread said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Milky1985 I like the joystiq review score.
Reply

Posted: Jul 7th 2010 7:45PM xxxsam said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@TheDread
I like that they're doing it and star ratings are a good way to mark games, but it's still a little confusing.

I was going to criticise them for 'star inflation' based on this quote from an abstract of a review:

'For the most part, crazy boring. When it's not boring, it's incredibly frustrating. And on a few rare occasions? Frustratingly boring.'

This review gives 2 stars. Where did those come from? Was one star for frustrating and the other star for boring?!

But when you find the explanation of their star ratings, it actually corresponds directly with something the author said in the review (2 stars = don't buy this unless you're really desperate for a game of this type). So, they're actually consistent. I kind of think that analysis should've been 1 star but whatever... Maybe it would be nice if each star rating also included the standard text description of what that rating means. And, yeah, it did say that in the text of the review in this case. So no real criticism here...
Reply

Posted: Jul 7th 2010 9:36AM Mctittles said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I watched a movie on Netflix the other day. I enjoyed the movie. After I was done watching it I started reading the comments on it. There were a lot of negative comments on the movie. I started to like the movie less for some reason...
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

WRUP: All the Reckoning

Posted on Feb 10th 2012 11:45PM

Xbox Live Indie Gems: Nyan Cat Adventure

Posted on Feb 10th 2012 10:15PM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW