In the AVault thread, Mark Asher wrote:

"I'm sure bad reviews hurt and good reviews help, but I'm not sure they have a big impact on sales. Gamers seem to have their mind made up about purchasing a game before they read reviews."

Is this a gut feeling? Or do you have any statistical data to back this up? I'm not being contrary, I'm actually curious.

Before I wrote about games, and now that I'm only doing the occasional freelance gig, I depend/ed heavily on reviews. Recently: I bought Sacrifice solely because of Greg Kasavin's GameSpot review and Tom Chick's championing of the game. I bought No One Lives Forever, even after disliking the demo, because the reviews were so positive. I bought Chrono Cross based on reviews. I almost bought Giants for the same reason. I may still.

With people who follow the game industry closely, I think you may be right. They decide early on whether they are interested in a game or not, and reviews may only change their minds in the case of real surprises (amazing! unplayable!).

Then, you have seemingly inexplicable phenomena like Myst and RollerCoaster Tycoon. These are the result of good games garnering an almost maniacal amount recommendations to and from "casual" gamers. They are rare.

For consumers who fall between "casual" and "hardcore," it seems like reviews do make a difference. Games like Fallout, Jagged Alliance, and X-COM must have at least enjoyed some boost in popularity due to the accolades heaped on them. And when I read about the dissapointing sales of Battlezone, FreeSpace and its ilk, I always wonder how more dissapointing those figures would be without the glowing press those games received. And then there's The Longest Journey, which would probably have never even been released in the US without all the positive reviews it received.

Again, though, this is a gut feeling on my part as well. I'd be interested in hearing what others think on the subject.

Do you use reviews for purchasing decisions? Or do you read them to support/challenge your own opinions?

Is word of mouth or a large sampling of reviews more important to your purchasing decisions?

Have you ever bought a game that you hadn't considered buying because of glowing recommendations? Were you disappointed?

"I'm sure bad reviews hurt and good reviews help, but I'm not sure they have a big impact on sales. Gamers seem to have their mind made up about purchasing a game before they read reviews."

Is this a gut feeling? Or do you have any statistical data to back this up? I'm not being contrary, I'm actually curious."

It's anecdotal and gutteral both. A game like Freespace 2 received almost universal acclaim and high ratings, yet it hardly sold. FAKK 2 is another game with good reviews that seemingly didn't sell. Even the KISS game got good press and didn't sell.

It's a little bit harder to pick out games that got poor reviews and didn't sell as a result, since so many games didn't sell regardless of reviews. C&C 2 sold well, though perhaps lukewarm reviews dampened sales -- hard to say.

"Before I wrote about games, and now that I'm only doing the occasional freelance gig, I depend/ed heavily on reviews. Recently: I bought Sacrifice solely because of Greg Kasavin's GameSpot review and Tom Chick's championing of the game. I bought No One Lives Forever, even after disliking the demo, because the reviews were so positive. I bought Chrono Cross based on reviews. I almost bought Giants for the same reason. I may still."

I'm sure that good and bad reviews help and hurt, but what kind of numbers are we talking about? Do rave reviews sell an extra ten thousand copies or one hundred thousand? I'd guess the former.

Interesting...

Review effectiveness may depend as much on the reader as the writer. People do things for all kinds of different reasons, and everyone has their tastes. Wing Commander the movie got universally panned, but I watched it anyway. Of course, as a gamer, I had a different level of interest than the regular watcher.

Maybe it's the same with game reviews. Different gamers will respond based on their biases. Genre fanatics might buy all kinds of games in their category just because they're completists - or perhaps might only buy the best ones based on demo or word of mouth. Casual gamers might just buy on the box art or screenshots, which might be more powerful than any review! True story, at a Best Buy one day, a guy was trying to choose between European Air War and Falcon 4, and I pointed him to EAW...he almost bought the other one because he thought it looked better on the box.

But me, and probably a lot of other gamers of limited time and funds? I definitely use reviews both online and offline. Some people bitch about the games press industry, but I'll take it. Even with the mediocre writing, I am glad to let someone else ferret out the stinkers :)

The tricky part is the games that get average reviews...there's that fuzzy area where the intangibles of bias and taste can make a game that's perceived as average by one to be great by another, or vice versa. The Old Man Murray guys, for example, might be the only guys besides me that liked Urban Chaos. I think many reviews were lukewarm on it. In these cases, a gamer that uses reviews may have to choose whether to gamble on a critically average game and try it out. But for very good or very bad games, I think reviews help as long as there are readers paying attention.

Heck, I almost hate to admit this but in a lot of cases I don't read reviews at all. If I'm on the fence about a game I will (i.e. If it is an RTS game, which I usually won't like) but if it is a game I want and it is doing well in Gone Gold's Gold Guide or gamerankings.com then that's all I need.

That said, I did pick up both Majesty and Rayman 2 based on the press those games got here.

"But me, and probably a lot of other gamers of limited time and funds? I definitely use reviews both online and offline. Some people bitch about the games press industry, but I'll take it."

Yeah, I think it has an effect. I bet NOLF gets some extra legs from the stellar reviews it got. Still, think of your other buying habits. Do you consult reviews before you buy music CDs, books, DVDs or VHS movies, etc.?

I think hardcore fans probably like to read reviews about their hobby, be it music, film, or games. They're also the ones most likely to be tuned in and know about the relative merits of the products they're considering buying, even without consulting formal reviews.

"Do you consult reviews before you buy music CDs, books, DVDs or VHS movies, etc.? "

Actually, good point. No, I don't read reviews of music, but music, like games and books, has a heavy subjective element. Also, I can demo lots of music for free at stores and on radio. I do read movie reviews, but like we said earlier and in other threads, it's possible to like things the critics don't. I don't really like the Rambo movies, for example, but Roger Ebert thinks they're great...all of 18 them, or however many were made. Amazing.

"I think hardcore fans probably like to read reviews about their hobby, be it music, film, or games. They're also the ones most likely to be tuned in and know about the relative merits of the products they're considering buying, even without consulting formal reviews"

That's true too. Dedicated gamers probably know more about their favorite anticipated two or three hot releases each year than some of the reviewers do. They've spent the pre-release time (sometimes a year or two, or more) studying previews, interviews, screenshots, faqs, news.

That said, it's still possible for the final game to be a dud. In that case, it's nice to have a battery of reviewers 'sucking it down' before you get to it. In fact, that's such a great service, why don't they pay those guys more. Lots more! Yeah! :)

"Before I wrote about games, and now that I'm only doing the occasional freelance gig, I depend/ed heavily on reviews. Recently: I bought Sacrifice solely because of Greg Kasavin's GameSpot review and Tom Chick's championing of the game. I bought No One Lives Forever, even after disliking the demo, because the reviews were so positive. I bought Chrono Cross based on reviews. I almost bought Giants for the same reason. I may still."

Oh yeah. I even buy a few games every year that sit in the boxes, unloved. The last few games I can remember that I bought but never got around to playing are Descent3, B-17 II, KISS: Psycho Circus, and a number of others.

Part of the problem is a lack of time. But I like to "vote" for the PC Game industry, and if a game is decent and in my area of interest (FPS, RTS, driving) at all, I'll buy it just to support the developer and the industry. Cash talks.

"Do you use reviews for purchasing decisions? Or do you read them to support/challenge your own opinions?"

For example. Clive Barker's Undying is getting surprisingly good reviews, yet I had written that off as Timeline-style crap. So I'll probably be buying it. Any game I am on the fence about, absolutely, reviews matter.

"Is word of mouth or a large sampling of reviews more important to your purchasing decisions?"

I know a few people that loved Giants and recommended it personally, yet the game drove me bonkers. That was one of the least fun hour-long "gaming" sessions in recent memory. In the case of Giants the reviews were a little more accurate, expressing some critical ambiguity about the game. I would say in general a sampling of 6-12 reviews is more accurate than word of mouth.

"Have you ever bought a game that you hadn't considered buying because of glowing recommendations? Were you disappointed?"

What type of 'glowing recommendations'? From word of mouth, see my Giants example-- I was quite disappointed.

The only time I've been disappointed with a game purchased because of a glowing review was Eidos' Commandos. My mistake here was basing it on a _single_ wildly positive review. Damn you Adrenaline Vault! That game was like nails on a chalkboard to me. I'm chanelling some residual pain just thinking about it. I learned to read at least a few reviews next time..

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Heck, I almost hate to admit this but in a lot of cases I don't read reviews at all. If I'm on the fence about a game I will (i.e. If it is an RTS game, which I usually won't like) but if it is a game I want and it is doing well in Gone Gold's Gold Guide or gamerankings.com then that's all I need."

That's a good point.. sometimes relying on the user reviews at IMDB, Amazon, or Mr. Showbiz (*cough*) can be more accurate than the offical reviews.

Though, in reality, I think this is just another way of re-stating the "base your decision on a dozen reviews instead of a single review" axiom.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

---

Quote:

That said, I did pick up both Majesty and Rayman 2 based on the press those games got here.

---

"I do read movie reviews, but like we said earlier and in other threads, it's possible to like things the critics don't. I don't really like the Rambo movies, for example, but Roger Ebert thinks they're great...all of 18 them, or however many were made. Amazing."

Yeah, but you're falling into the trap of looking at just one critic's opinion. I'm sure everyone has critics they learn to trust and generally tend to agree with. But you still can't take that as an across the board recommendation. Everyone has their weird little preferences from time to time-- Flying Heroes anyone?

"Wow, that sucks. I'd ask Tom Chick for my money back on Majesty."

Majesty was pretty good, IMO, as long as you knew what you were getting into. The gameplay certainly held my interest longer than Sacrifice did.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Yes, reviews influence my purchasing decisions to the extent that I have an informal list of games I plan to purchase/play.

I'm not going to purchase something I'm not already interested in, but a slew of favorable reviews may bump it up on my queue (NOLF). Personal recommendations can get games added to my queue (Warlords Battlecry), and a bunch of bad reviews may get a game thrown off the list (Force Commander). Kind of too bad, actually. This means I get the occasional mediocre game during slow seasons (Nox), and miss out on a good game during busy seasons (Combat Mission). It all comes down to the amount of time I have.

I don't think the queue has ever been empty.

- Alan

"Wow, that sucks. I'd ask Tom Chick for my money back on Majesty."

Bruce, I just wanted to notify you that I'm changing your official Qt3 forum name to "Istvan." :)

"Wow, that sucks. I'd ask Tom Chick for my money back on Majesty."

I'd like to add that Rayman 2 is outstanding. That was a solid recommendation from Tom. Like that fat guy who reviews movies, he's not _always_ wrong.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Games reviewers are like movie reviewers. Is it really a case of how good a movie reviewer is? Or is it just a case of how much like you that reviewer happens to think?

Ditto games reviews. I look more for people who like the kinds of games I do, or think the way I do, and stick with them. Are they geniuses? Well, if they think like me...

Seriously, I'm also a big fan of positive attitudes and good humor. It's why I like GameSpin and Shoot Club. Of course, I can no longer get either one, which is putting a damper on my positive attitude here. Yo, Tom! You had a sponsor for February! Shoot Club! Shoot Club! A game like Undying out there and no Trevor update? That's just mean, man. Not as mean as it will be if Tropico has multi-player and we don't get an update, but still down there.

Speaking of sponsors, any word for March? And are you guys still trying to generate buzz outside the site?

Hey! I liked Majesty and I usually *hate* RTS games.

"Speaking of sponsors, any word for March? And are you guys still trying to generate buzz outside the site?"

We probably have someone lined up. Tom and I are more concerned with the whole web free-fall. Another freelance market just dried up. IGN isn't going to use freelancers after this week.

No surprise there, as Snowball is in serious financial trouble. Still, it's not what we like to hear.

I don't understand how cutting out freelancers will save you that much money. You'd be better off, financially and editorially, to lay off a bunch of editors and have a freelance budget that equaled the editors you zapped. This would give you more editorial variety and ultimately lower costs.

More importantly, cutting out editors will likely save you a ton of money on extra expense like office space, materials, PC hardware and that big ole' bugaboo, HEALTH INSURANCE. Provided people at mags get decent health coverage that is. You could also throw in things like matching funds on 401k's and stuff of that nature. Freelancers get one check per review and done. What they do with that dough is up to them and they have their own problems with materials equipment, etc.

The best thing about in-house editors that I can surmise is that you get a more unified team atmosphere and can probably get some things done faster than if you have guys spread out to the four corners of the globe. No pun intended... :)

It doesn't make much sense for IGN to get rid of the freelancers though. Unless all the sites are going to have one editorial team running every one of them. I find that hard to believe.

(On a more personal note, I really hope IGNDC hangs around for awhile, it's easily the best IGN site and one of the best sites on the 'net, period.)

--Dave

"I don't understand how cutting out freelancers will save you that much money. You'd be better off, financially and editorially, to lay off a bunch of editors and have a freelance budget that equaled the editors you zapped. This would give you more editorial variety and ultimately lower costs."

Yep, I agree, though it seems kind of a jerky thing to agree to. :)

Gamepower is run like you suggest. They have two editors and rely nearly 100% on freelancers. They're getting about 20 new articles a month for a cost that's probably equivalent to the salary of one editor in NYC, where they are located.

A lot of companies are loathe to get rid of "headcounts," unless it is part of a restructuring. The reason is simple: The core employees are expected to be dedicated to the company and make sure that everything works. Freelancers are independant contributors. They are useful, but have no allegiance or concern for the company beyond being supplied with work by it. What a lot of companies are doing right now is taking a "run the contractors" approach. They use a few core employees, and use them to manage independent contractors. This gives them great freedom with regards to expenses. Cutting freelancers right now, frankly, is backward from what you should expect in a slowing economy. Don't forget,, gang, it's not just the web that's feeling the crunch now. Things are tight all over.