What Are Reviews Good For

What Are Reviews Good For?

How do us consumers use the work of critics in their own decision making and why do they show such hostility to poor reviews?

Last weekend turned out to be an interesting one for those interested in the culture of game reviewing. Whilst Keith Stuart of the Guardian Gamesblog was questioning whether reviewers really cared about (or even understood) innovation when critiquing games, Edge-Online published a review that gave 'Resistance 2' a quite controversial but perhaps not surprising 6 out of 10.

[Why o why]

and watch the cum fest.

[chaosatom]

Oh ok, so 8-player co-op wasn't innovative, that's has never been done on 360

And 60-player multiplayer, oh wait, that's not innovative at all, they wanted 100- player multiplayer.

And I wonder what they gave other shooters like Turok or Area 51, that fall short of Resistance 2? 1/10 or 2/10?

They were fed money, or they went into resistance already knowing what score they will give it.

I am betting that they are going into KILLZONE 2 already knowing what score they are going to give. And they will PEG it as hard as they can, for even most minor of things.

[Gun_Senshi]

Gears of kill.switch and Halo are innovative!!!!

[Amnesiac]

Actually Halo was incredibly innovative but that's beside the point.

This article is retarded. Seems like these guys shouldn't write stuff that is going to get flamed if they can't take the heat. We don't care about their "response article" and their logic behind reviewing games, It's clear that logic SUCKS based on their utterly pathetic excuse for trying to rip R2, I mean, review R2....These pseudo-journalists need to GET OVER THEMSELVES

/rant

[Sarcasm]

The biggest problem I have with that review is not the 6 out of 10. But it's friggin only like 8 paragraphs.

A game as big as Resistance 2 will not take just 8 paragraphs to describe. Even if the game totally sucked, you can talk a lot about it.

[jaysquared]

R2 on the 360 would be so much better! Seriously graphics gameplay and the online!

@below- You act like M$ can't put up dedicated servers to do that. Doesn't frontlines have up to 50 players online?

[WeaseL]

lol @ R2 on the 360,
60 players playing on a P2P network = Epic Fail

[Danja]

It bugs when I see ppl talk about how bad R2 is graphically , the game is not the best looking i've seen but trust me there were a few moments where my draws dropped because of how much things were going on screen at once the framerate was steady throughout the entire game pretty impressive game from a technical stand point.

Edge was either paid to give R2 or they're now pulling a Gamespot trying t get attention for all the wrong reasons.

If R2 is not that good then I guess something is wrong with me , cuz im seriously pumped for R3..and what they're gonna be able to achieve with that game..

[Jdoki]

Edge gave Turok a 5/10 (the same score they gave Haze) and Area 51 a 4/10.

It's a travesty that R2 is rated close to those POS!

And yet Halo 3 was given 10/10 - what a joke that was. Halo 3 was an 8 all the way.

[Jake1111]

And I can honestly say with no fanboyism that the only game that I play now is RFOM2. The ONLINE rules!!

The single player was actually great (epic battles, giant bosses etc) and it definitely is one of the best I have played.

The score I agree with for RFOM2 is IGN's score of 9.5. It was definitely OUTSTANDING and worth the money.

GOW2 is fun. I couldnt see myself playing it over or chosing the online instead of RFOM2. It was fun though. Just not replayable...

Jake

[InMyOpinion]

That explains why they awarded LBP a perfect 10.

[badz149]

LBP is too hell good of a game and nobody...I really mean nobody except blinds M$ fanboys or anything-PS3-related haters can downplay that game, hence the 10s accross the board! but, in R2 case, what happen when other people gave at least a solid 8 but EDGE is the only one giving it a lower-than-average 6?! that indicates that there is something terribly WRONG! - not with the game itself, but with the fvcking brain dead reviewer who reviewed the game! there are limits for being harsh but to go as far as saying that R2 is not innovative is indeed the sign of STUPIDITY! Halo3 got 10 from them but what warranted that? lagless 60-player online? 8-player separated story co-op? a god damn HUGE monsters? solid fps throughout the game with lots of things on the screen at once? oh, my appologize...only RESISTANCE 2 has those!! my point is, EDGE is DUMB!!

[MNicholas]

Halo series
Gears series
Resistance series
MGS4 series

[MNicholas]

without taking kickbacks (officially shown as "ad revenue"). Who said life's fair? Deal with it. Any smart business would do the same.

[RememberThe357]

"Reviewing games is no easy task, speaking from experience, and finding that finely tuned tipping point where a review explores the critical and artistic merits of a title whilst still discussing its utility to the gamer is complex and ultimately impossible."

Only The Games does that really well, so obviously its not impossible.

If a small time blog can figure out how to review games in a helpful way, why can't the big time websites figure it out?

[WANNA GET HIGH]

EDGE = A$$

[ultimolu]

11/11 confirmed.

Seriously.

[PS3 FTW]

It's still a great game but..

It doesn't feel like R:FoM did!

R1 was so mysterious and creepy but R2 didn't have that. The competitive mode seems like they tried to conform it to other games out there like CoD4

[PS3 FTW]

If you put R2 on 360 there would be advertisements everywhere stating the 60 player online and 8 player co-op and saying "only on Xbox 360. Now $199". The reviews would all be 9.5+ and saying how innovative and unique it is. The 360 fanboys would be touting "HAHA! Have fun with that Mario rip-off LittleBigPlanet! We've got REAL games!" (actually they already say that).

R2 was and is amazing. Every part of it is fun. If it was separated into 3 games I would pay $60 for the Campaign, Co-Op and Competitive. Other games only have 1 of those modes and are $60 but R2 has all 3 so it's like a 3 for 1 special.

BioShock - Campaign only - $60

Left 4 Dead - Co-Op only (who would play that alone since it's made specifically for Co-Op) - $60

SOCOM/WARHAWK - Multiplayer only - $40

R2 - Long Campaign - Highest relative players (8) in a separate Co-Op campaign - Highest relative players (60) in console Multiplayer - $60

Even if someone doesn't like R2 it still doesn't deserve anything below an 8.5 at the least. I hate Halo but I recognize that's it a good game so I give it a high-8 but it's still not deserving of the hype.

[monfa]

"This leads on to Edge’s review of ‘Resistance 2’, which criticised the game largely for its lack of innovation and improvement since the franchise’s first instalment."

It is either a good or a bad game.
I never played the first one and would never know if they made improvements or not...

[BattleAxe]

The idiot that wrote this article misses the point of a 6/10 review for a game like R2. A review is meant to be a guide to consumers as to whether a game is good or if it is bad.

When a game review site like Edge goes against the grain when universally the game is looked upon at the very least as being a good game, it usually means one of 2 things. Either you're trying to get hits on your website or you're biased due to either advertising dollars or just plain fanboyism.

Giving R2 a 6/10 review is basically saying that the game is a poor game. Everyone who has played the game knows that it isn't a poor game and frankly speaking, giving a 6/10 review is totally irresponsible especially when a Developer like Insomniac worked so hard to make this a great game. A review like this could potentially have a financial impact on the sales that Insomniac could have had before Edge put this review out to its loyal reader base.

Give poor reviews when they are deserved as in the case with DICE and their game BattleField: Bad Company. They released their game with all kinds of bugs, one online game mode and a mediocre single player campaign. To make matters worse, DICE's response to these bugs and lack of game modes has been slow if non existent. But yet you give a game like that a 7/10?

I just don't get it.

[FrankenLife]

I don't think that they gave it a 6 because they were bias. I think they gave it a 6 because they are just too stupid to recognize a good game when they see it. Sometimes they do give a good game a good score, but hey, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

[SonyOwnsNextYear]

lol, what these so called "burnalists" are not acknowledging is the amount of content on the disc. 28.30 Gb.

lol, thats like 3 x360 games.

To me the game is great and a awesome addition to 2008's gems.

[Kaneda]

They should explained it like this. "We gave RFOM2 6/10 becoz is the closest game to compete with 360 GoW2 and we won 360 to win this Holiday" the end...

[Kill Crow]

Another low PS3 score meqans another company is suddenly on the M$ Pay Roll.

You guys never cease to amaze !!!

It's like a Bad 9/11 concpiracy - if you criticise the conspiracy then you're part of the conpiracy ...

Grow up people, it's just one review.... one opinion ... if you like the game then that's all that should matter. You don't look at all the high scores given and say "Well they just scored it high because they're paid by Sony" ... it's just a score

[shadowghost752]

Edge hate the PS3 it is hardly a secret

[Why o why]

the devs are from the UK. They are normally very patriotic

[The Matrix]

They're gay look at the guy who wrote that article no wonder they give stupid and inaccurate reviews.

[InMyOpinion]

Then why did they give LittleBigPlanet a perfect 10?

[THC CELL]

Hmm talking about uk developers are they making Operation flashpoint 2 ?
the game that will kill BF BC ?

6/10 this site needs shutting down

they was paid By MS

Boycott
Boycott
This stupid edge site and mags

[rucky]

"This leads on to Edge’s review of ‘Resistance 2’, which criticised the game largely for its lack of innovation and improvement since the franchise’s first instalment."

So why did Gears 2 and l4d received a 9/10? Consistency with reviews is all we asking for.

[doshey]

i have played l4d and it is no damn 9 its only in the 8 category but still great game

[Why o why]

CONSISTENCY

its the reason ill use an ign review over theirs EVEN if their scores are the same

[animboo]

what im seeing, r2 pushed alot of console innovation, the 60 player online, 8 player co op, i mean isnt that innovative..

[RadientFlux]

A very good read about what a review really is and how too many people don't come up with their own opinions and focus too much on the final score.

[Why o why]

but after playing some of the games they review i honestly have to ask WTF. The gaming media STINKS and the EDGE are not above corruption or foul play just because their British. They come from a pc background and it shows.

[RadientFlux]

I've re-read the Resistance 2 Edge review and not found anything in the review that leads me to believe that there was any corruption or foul play when it came to the review process.

Just a reviewer that ended up not liking the game as much as everyone else and you as reader have the option in the future not to read any of his reviews and instead wait for reviews from reviewers that match your gaming preference.

[kwyjibo]

"They come from a PC background".

Shut up. You know nothing about the publication.

Please stick to IGN's consistent 8's (they have recently stopped doing this, which I applaud), and their anal retentive pointless writing (they haven't stopped doing this).

[ultimolu]

Both of you missed the point. It's not the review that pissed people off (6/10). It's the *way* that review was written, as if the assholes who reviewed it hadn't played the game thoroughly or something.

[Omega4]

So a PS3 exclusive didnt get a high score and automatically Edge is biased what about the majority of reviews of R2 which are in the 8-8.5 range, Edge are known for being extra harsh thats why it got lower than the average of 8

[Why o why]

that is not the point. Read what rucky posted. Just open ur eyes for a second and consider what we are saying. Answer me this as i find it really hard to get a straight answer from the 360 guys on n4g

Do you think there is ANY bias in the gaming media whether it be for/against a publisher/dev/culture/console/ genre?

Sometimes its like the only person people say is a sony fanboy who works in the media is Shane from 1up....how ironic

Ive been reading edge for over 10 years now so ive seen change. I use to trust them and a 9 from them is a 10 anywhere else its just the consistency that they are lacking

[Man_of_the_year]

Yes i am sure there is bias in the industry which is why you take the average of all reviews since bias works both ways PROS and CONS.

The game didn't deserve a 6 but it also doesn't deserve a 9

[Why o why]

that is a fair comment. I feel its around 8.5 to 9.0 but ive not finished it yet. Im just a little baffled about the lack of innovation free pass that other games have been given. Its their inconsistency that is annoying

[Man_of_the_year]

Well i haven't really looked into their history with review scores so i can't comment on them being inconsistent - but didn't they give LBP a 10/10..perfect score, absolutely nothing wrong with the game...

If they are being inconsistent i just don't see it.

[kwyjibo]

You've really been reading Edge for 10 years? Even after that "PC background" post you made?

Well, if you've seen change, you'll have seen in those 10 years, that Edge has repeatedly gone against the grain of IGNs. I don't think you've been reading Edge that long, if at all. Go back to the PS2 era, and you'll find that the reviews were a lot terser and content light, and their features more geared towards industry than towards consumers.

Edge have repeatedly gone against the grain GTA III got 6/10, Morrowind got 6/10, and I disagree with both of those scores. They also gave Max Payne a 6/10, and Mass Effect a 7/10, scores against the run of play that I agree with entirely.

Publications should not second guess the Metacritic average, they should set out their own arguments and be forthright with their opinions, even if runs counter to popular consensus. Because these are the publications that define the Metacritic averages, not ones that follow it.

You will not find a single source of reviews in which you will agree with whole heartedly, because you are not the ones writing it. Even the IGN and Gamespot of 2006, awarding everything an 8/10 you'll disagree with, when it awards that score to duds.

[Why o why]

all good n well but HALO 3 10??

Them, eurogamer and channel 4 text share the same reviewers. I used to like the edge back in the day because they seemed more artsy than the other mags around I even loved the front cover artwork it was also the most expensive and thickest mag around and yes it wasnt directed at me because half wouldnt read half the stuff . Maybe i just wanted to be different who knows. I was into their mags in the amiga atari st days and stopped in the late ps1/ early ps2 days. When i say they have changed its that they would seldom give a 10 and they used to underscore many many games that i liked but they were consistent in their underscoring to me at that time. Now im a cynic and will read into what they say plus im not as innocent as i used to be and when i see them giving games a free pass on some issues but take away points on another then I have ask why. Honestly, whats so innovative about halo 3. I like gears but the halo mark FROM THEM set my alarms ringing.

Im sorry i cant post no shots or receipts of my edge magazines. I favoured it because i knew they were from the uk like myself and all the other mags like cv+g , egm et el were heavy on info that didnt directly relate to me. On reflection ive been reading edge on and off for over ten years long b4 i even had internet or even a real pc.

And in response to your comment above ill ask you this. What is your most trusted site? (out of the ones you trust) Ive never said ANY site was perfect and i doubt you are either but your attacking ign and as far as im concerned they are more consistent nowadays than they used to be and guess why that is......because things change. My judgements of them are not static or set in stone. I used to like many sites including gamespot (dont shoot me) they are 1 of the biggest sites out there but they too have shown their corruptible side to the point where i dont even need too mention what im in about. The media is becoming too powerful so why wouldnt sony, ubisoft, MS want to control and manipulate it and gain an advantage in one way or the other.

http://uk.gamespot.com/ps2/...

they love themselves some sony exclusives

[aggh im on fire]

I don't think much of the single player, a lot of edges issues i actually agree with but the multi-player is very good and worth getting for if online's your bag. Just my opinion mind.
I also noticed today Teletext on channel 4 (UK text service) also gave this a seven and said it was a 5 if you weren't online. Are they the same reviewers i wonder?

[Why o why]

saw one of their names as a writer for eurogamer. ill dig him up. They are all in the same as far as im concerned.

[Blademask]

HALO3 = Terrible Single Player But the ONLINE is great! AAA
COD4 = Flawed SHORT single Player, But the ONLINE IS GREAT! AAA
Gears1 = Bad SHort Single Player, But the ONLINE IS GREAT!! AAA
Gears2 = Bad SHort Single Player, But the ONLINE IS GREAT!! AAA
Resistance1 = Good Single Player, Bad Online 6/10
Resistance 2 = Meh SIngle Player, but the ONLINE IS SECOND TO NONE 6/10

Its all BS.

If you point out how mundane the single player of resistance is, and hold it against the title, you HAVE TO DO IT FOR ALL GAMES. The only time i think about Movie reviews is when it comes to PS3 games, they are the only games that are subjugated to such scrutiny. Everything MUST be perfect in order for it to score high. Why cant a PS3 game get a pass for BAD single player with good online? The HIGHEST RATED shooters all have MEH stories, and completely underwhelming or cheesy parts that are always IGNORED because the multiplayer is good.

Remember reading Halo3 reviews? "ENOUGH ABOUT THE SINGLE PLAYER, WE ARE ALL HERE FOR MULTIPLAYER HAHAHA WOOOOO GOTY!"

If EDGE cant see how this makes them extremely bias, its unfortunate. Since the leading voices out there cant seem to see that they are clearly grading the PS3 title by standards that they aren't doing 360 games.

Simple:

If you mark down a game for having underwhelming parts compared to the amazing parts, you mark down ALL games for this.

If you IGNORE the single player aspect of a game(halo) to prop up the online and give it a pass, you must do this for ALL games with good multiplayer.

Its no shock that a game will have underwhelming parts, gears2 shows that off greatly. But wait, as do ALL VIDEO GAMES. But once again, only in the case of the PS3, is it a NEGATIVE SCORE AFFECTING PROBLEM.

Edge only gives the games that they would get too much BS from 10/10. LBP is an easy given, it was in a SEA of 10'10's and had much more media exposure than Resistance 2. Even comparing a shooter to LBP is beyond retarded, and really just means their #'s are more important than the actual game itself.

[Sarcasm]

"ENOUGH ABOUT THE SINGLE PLAYER, WE ARE ALL HERE FOR MULTIPLAYER HAHAHA WOOOOO GOTY!"

lol that one I cant forget.

But yes I agree there is an insane double standard and extreme inconsistency in reviews it's ridiculous.

Like Uncharted was praised for it's rich single player but was knocked for not having a multiplayer. But then Bioshock conveniently "doesn't need multiplayer to get a 10."

[sniper4534]

flop

[Information Minister]

I'm just happy that I can think for myself and don't need some reviewer to tell me what I should play.

[GlibGamer]

And this is what it's all about. Like you, I don't make my purchases based on what anyone has to say. If I'm iffy on a game, I rent it. Otherwise I take any info I get on a game with a grain of salt or 20 when doing my research.

[xgodofwar4sss]

rt rules

[Surfman]

Biased websites and magazines are not new. Plus, im sure Edge didnt really played Coop and Multiplayer with R2, the score would have been better.

[aggh im on fire]

Isnt that exactly what Sony were doing for the last 10 years. I do agree with you though about not wanting a Monopoly.
Blademask.. In Edges review of Gears2 they said the single player campaign was great which it is and its quite a resonable length this time round. Im not saying there review of Resistance was right but if they didn't like the single player then whats wrong with them saying so.
Also im sure Edge reviews games based on there genres. So a game like Guitar hero might get a better score than say Uncharted. It doesn't mean its a better game it just means its good for that type of game.
Resistance would have been up against games such as Half-life / Halo/ COD etc and in there mind didn't make the grade.
Personnaly i think the game is a 8.5 but if thats what Edge thinks then thats fair enough.

[Ju]

That's all fair. For that game, not liking it, is an opinion and I could accept a 8, or even a 7.5 to express dislike. But in no way does it deserve a 6. And if the quality level is so high, then, sorry, GeOW2 does not deserve the 9 in that context, either. I am amazed that by all their criticism, scope somehow does not play any role in the result. What about value for the bucks ?

[Raoh]

i blieve some of the employees at edge are former microsoft employees.