Study Suggests Reviews Strongly Shape Word of Mouth

[More Fun To Compute]

Not really surprised. Next thing you will be telling me that the best prediction of how well a game is reviewed is how much is being spent on marketing. Oh, shock, horror, reviewers are also sometimes more influenced by PR, gamers and the game development community than the actual product. They don't even need bribes or people in PR shouting at them to change their reviews like some more excitable commenters insist must be happening all the time. But reviewers are also far from being the only ones who are affected by hype and "wars of ideas." We all are.

 

[tcurt]

I can see easily how poor reviews can mute word of mouth. If I really love one of the poorest reviewed games, movies, albums of the year, I'd probably have a tendancy to keep it to myself, despite my love for it.

No matter how passionately I might try and promote my love for the fine and nuanced gameplay of Barbie: Horse Adventures, I have no doubt that my pleas would fall on deaf ears. And that would be in no small part due to the overwhelming terrible reviews of the game. I doubt any of my peers or posters here ever played the game themselves, but I bet I would find no shortage of folks happy to pile on me their mockery based on the negative buzz. I know this and would probably keep my secret love of a girl and her pony to myself.

However, if the reviews backed up my position - even marginally - I would be far more comfortable outing myself as a fan and recommending the game.

Disclaimer: I have never actually bought a game in a pink box. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Yeah, this wasn't really obvious, was it now?

I am just tired of all these studies, confirming what we know and hell, even contradicting eachother. Especially about how games effect behaviour or the other way around. The complexity of the human brain-...The cognitive ability of a pe--. You know what, nevermind.

I totally support these studies. You just have to recognise them for what they are; a way to keep scientists busy so that they don't decide to start blowing things up. Scientists could do a fuck of a lot of damage if you don't waste their time on meaningless, self-evident dross like this.

Personally, I noyl read reviews for games that I've already decided I'm going to buy. I find that it helps to hype me up for the game, and I find myself noticing positive things because the reviewer has pointed them out. Oddly enough, I rarely see a bad review for a game I'm going to buy, but then again I rent a lot of shit games and only save the big money for awesome-looking stuff.

 

[DominicxD]

I watch a gameplay video and I can tell exactly how the game will feel to play. That's how I decide.

 

[NoNameMcgee]

Hm, I am really sick of people bashing reviews.

I base my choice of whether or not to buy games ENTIRELY based on reviews. I won't form an opinion on a game until I have played it obviously, but my purchases are decided entirely by reading professional reviews by people who know what they are talking about. My opinion might be different from theirs, and I might miss out on a couple of gems, but for the most part it has helped me make wise decisions and without reviews I would be lost.

Fact is, the less people who like something, the less likely it is that I am going to like it. Not because I just follow the crowd, but because when something is shit, most people generally recognize that it's shit. There are hugely overrated games, sure (Call of Duty, Halo, Gears of War etc) but none of those games are shit. Actual shitty games that I won't even want to play are recognised by the majority as shit, and after reading reviews and seeing thoughts and facts stated about a game I have a general idea of if I am going to like it or not.

I know scores are useless (I always read the reviews rather than looking at scores) but here is a test for people who hate reviews: name me a couple of games that have an aggregate score of below 50/100 on Metacritic that you actually consider to be good games. Go on, I dare you. You might find a couple, of course there are going to be exceptions. But I think unless you have an extremely niche taste in games, you're going to have trouble finding more than 3-5... There's a reason for this, guys. The majority are not as stupid as you all think they are. Not many people are going to play a truly crap game, and that alone makes the chances of me enjoying it much slimmer simply by process of elimination.

 

[Echo136]

I tend to go with the review scores because I dont wanna buy every game that ever existed to find the one game that I'll like, because I wasnt blessed with that kind of funding, so I choose to seek out an opinion. I would try word of mouth but I dont trust that of my gaming friends, seeing as how every movie I've considered an inspired piece of writing they shoot down as boring. They must all be the type to like action movies and shooter games, so I go for the review scores.

By the way, someone earlier said STALKER was their favorite game and it got bad reviews. I WISH id gone with the reviews on that game. I HATED that game with a passion. Waste of my money.

 

[Lorechaser]

The thing this survey is pointing out, though is that word of mouth is affected. So you say that you ignore reviews and just go with your friends. The study is suggesting that your word of mouth is influenced by the reviews. So you think you're free of the tripe, but you're really not.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I watch a gameplay video and I can tell exactly how the game will feel to play. That's how I decide.

Me too.
I look to reviews for facts more than opinions; Except for ZeroP, those are just hilarious.

I can totally believe this study though. It would explain how No More Heroes became so popular. The game bombed in Japan, in America it got rave reviews and became very successful.

 

[DTWolfwood]

there better not be any tax dollars at work here cause this really just seem like a "NO SHIT SHERLOCK" moment <.<

 

[Cyrax987]

I read reviews but I never make that my decision factor for a game I want. What I don't understand is if you goto the gamespot/gamefaqs forums, people will cancel pre-orders if a game gets a 7.0-8.0 like its a horrible score.

 

[McMarbles]

Experts: Water is "wet"

 

[Delusibeta]

Considering the vast majority of forum chatter on Alpha Protocol when its reviews went up was about how bad the game was, this report is 100% accurate. Hence, any chance of a sequel's been shelved. [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/07/07/licence-revoked-no-alpha-protocol-2/]

 

[Podunk]

While reviews are noteworthy and provide valuable perspective on the game of the moment, I will never condone Metacritic as a viable source of information. By picking and choosing what numbers to include, as well as making up/fudging numbers for reviews that don't use a 100 point scale (or a number scale at all) I just can't help but notice certain things, like when I look up a Wii game and it's got multiple 90-100 reviews from a bunch of websites and magazines with 'Nintendo' in the title. Reviews are only useful if they are coming from a source you can respect, trust, and share similar values with. Back before I haunted the Escapist I would always get two magazines every month: EGM and Game Informer. EGM was funny and entertaining but I didn't put much stock in their reviews. Game Informer, on the other hand, typically held the same values regarding games that I did. And even beneath that, there were certain reviewers I felt shared my opinions and those that I felt were too hung up on graphics or whatever. A review should inform a decision or at best inspire you to find out more for yourself. It should not be taken as a numeric scale showing you how much you should want this game.