Study Suggests Reviews Strongly Shape Word of Mouth

[Logan Westbrook]

Study Suggests Reviews Strongly Shape Word of Mouth

Research suggests that those Metacritic scores might be even more important than you think.

Some gamers read reviews to get an idea of what games they might like to buy, while others go with word of mouth. But new research conducted by EEDAR and SMU Guildhall suggest that the two might not be mutually exclusive, and reviews can even influence your opinion even after you've played a game for yourself.

EEDAR and Guildhall took 165 participants, split into three test groups, and had them play Plants vs. Zombies. One group was shown a mock positive review of the game in which it scored 90/100, another group was shown a mock negative review where the game scored 61/100, and the final group was shown no reviews at all.

The participants were then asked to give the game a score. The group shown positive reviews gave it a score of 85/100, a full 14 points higher than the group shown negative reviews, and six points higher than the control group. The positive group was also much more likely to recommend the game to a friend, with 91% saying they would, compared to 65% in the negative group.

The study did acknowledge however that review scores alone did not determine a game's success, and that numerous other factors, like marketing and PR, had an effect, but said that "the relationship between videogame sales and professional review scores are not correlative but causal."

"Professional critic reviews act as a multiplier for the likelihood of a consumer positively recommending the game to a friend," said the study. "As painful as it may be for developers to consider, even with the creation of a high quality game, a game is likely to achieve greater commercial success if reviewed highly, than if reviewed poorly or not at all."

This study seems to contradict research conducted by EEDAR at the end of last year, which said that marketing was the biggest factor in game sales [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/96177-Analyst-Marketing-Trumps-Reviews-in-Driving-Game-Sales], but it's easy to see the two having a complementary effect. The proper marketing of review scores, such as on promotional materials and game boxes, will certainly have a significant effect on how a game performs.

Source: Industry Gamer [http://www.industrygamers.com/news/game-reviews-can-amplify-or-reduce-word-of-mouth-buzz-finds-study/]




Permalink

 

[Loonerinoes]

Study says most people prefer to be influenced by percieved authority rather than think for themselves? *shrug* News to me.

And metacritic and other reviews *are* a form of marketing as well for a game. Just mentioning a game, let alone devoting column inches to it in a review or criticism, means you are advertising it, for good or ill. And the worst thing you can do to a game's reputation is not necessarily to trash it, but to utterly ignore it.

 

[GloatingSwine]

News just in: Most people are dimwits who can't think for themselves. I've seen this repeatedly, especially when people repeat complaints from reviews that I know to be factually wrong (like the aiming system in Alpha Protocol, which is the same conefire as everything else ever, but apparently in this one game is an example of how broken the combat is).

 

[Moriarty]

stop being so elitist.

Reviews DO color your opinion on the produkt, even if you try to form your own opinion.

A good reviewer will point out flaws or well made parts of a game and highlight them, rendering you unable to explore the games weaknesses on your own. Even if you disagree with the reviewer, your attention is being drawn to aspekts he/she deemed important.

 

[Xersues]

In collective behavior, the "public" discusses a single issue, such as the issues with Alpha protocol because we don't want to contradict the "Mass".

I am not a sociologist, but going against "what everyone has been saying" is not inherent in most of us as far as I can tell. Whether or not its perceived mass knowledge or real.

Status quo's 'n shit.

I usually read the review and can tell within seconds if the reviewer has any grasp of the game entirely. Most of the reviews I have read on IGN or Gamespot are just whiny, or bitchy, and almost have nothing to do with the game. You can just tell they are viewing it within their tiny little frame of how much thought and effort they gave it to just pump out another review "before the other guys".

At least the Escapist writes lengthy reviews and says how the game made them feel as they play it. That's really important to me. Was is fun, exciting, boring, frustrating, fun at times, slow, etc. Those perceptions might influence how I might feel about the genre if they give a reason why they felt that way.

 

[hyperdrachen]

This results of thier study are troubling. Much as i would like to think this is a fluke my gut says otherwise. I've posted a page before chastising professional reviewers for casually blasting a game. Unfairly or in some cases inaccuratley describing the game to thier audience. I make no excuse for the people who don't just hit a demo or rental up and decide for themselves. I just hope professional reviewers think about this the next time they're bitching about the endless chain of dull FPS, and perenial sport titles, then pivot on thier right foot and trash an original title.

Idiots and sheep far outnumber self directed educated people. So when your not happy with how something is, I'd urge you to consider what you're doing to lead the sheep in the direction you need them to go.

 

[Rarhnor]

How intriguing, though I don't bother to take reviews seriously. I base my purchases on the games genre and (*sigh*) coverart.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Makes sense, if someone likes it, but thinks no one else does, they're less likely to reccomend it.

 

[Legion]

Games that I have bought by recommendation, hype or reviews have more often than not been disappointing for me.

Those that I have bought on gut instinct have nearly always been my favourites. The exception being Fallout 2; that lovable, buggy as hell game.

 

[MetalGenocide]

TLR version: We think game reviews influence a person's opinion. And we have 165 people to "prove it".
Most people are stupid, and can be swayed this way. Everyone else, not so much.

 

[yoyo13rom]

I will say this though, you should never take a reviewers opinion over your own. I used to do that. When I liked a film the critics despised, I just thought that I was wrong and never watched it again. Bad.

That's why I don't look any more at Roger Ebert's reviews. Maybe his right and I'm worng, maybe I just like crappy films and stuff like that, but one thing is for certain: we have totally different tastes, and wouldn't get along very well.
Edit: OT: When seeing a bad review of a game I'm inclined to think it isn't that good, but I always go with my gut instincts(worst case scenario the reviewer's right, and I fail to get the satisfaction I was hoping for)

 

[uppitycracker]

These are the kind of studies that scare me. Because not only is it fundamentally flawed to test something like this on only those 3 groups of people (meaning, not running the test multiple times on multiple groups of people), but it also tells developers "hey, take that shit game you made, and instead of polishing it up, splurge on some editors to get a good review". Not like this kind of thing doesn't happen already, but it certainly does encourage it.

Now me, personally, I never did really think much of reviewers, due to the fact that they tend to hate what I love, up until the Last Airbender. I'm so angry I didn't listen... not like I was going to NOT see it, being a huge fan of the cartoon, but still.... they did nail that one.

 

[squid5580]

Uhh, I really cant understand how ANYONE can listen to a review and believe everything. Also whose dumb idea was it to simplify entertainment/art/sport with numbers. That does not work!

IF I read a review I READ it. I always ignore the score, seriously (unless its big and glowing... and shiny). Besides I do read it just to see if it could be my type of game, but I never take them seriously. The first ever review of one of my favourite games ever (S.T.A.L.K.E.R. SoC) wasnt that good (not bad, mind you) and yet here I am loving the thing.

It isn't just a matter of believing it. Especially when it comes to the ones who played then read. When someone sits there and points out all these flaws that you might have not noticed or really cared about at the time that can have an effect. I know it has with me. Where I beat a game, read the reviews and hear this and this and this was a problem and I go damn you're right. I just never thought about it like that.

 

[Jared]

I can see how its true...people who see high numbers are more likely to want to talk about it...

I like to look at the scores, but, I also try to read written review work. That way, the number isnt the only basis I have behind a decision