External factors that shape our impressions of games

[HotChops]

So big publishers have started to throw extravagant "review events" for game critics and journalists. Notable examples include early access events in resorts in Santa Barbara and Hawaii where the invited press have their travel and lodgings paid for by the publisher.

 

At these events the reviewer is usually provided a luxurious room with a large screen TV and surround sound -- all the comforts a large publisher can afford.

 

Most of the more respectable gaming outlets have declined to attend these events or they at least refuse any extra accommodation beyond the invitation under the grounds that it violates objectivity, if not brings it into question. At the time, I completely agreed with those who refused such gratuities.

 

But since then I've seen some things that justify the publisher's intentions. On a number of occasions, I've seen people blow off a game because they simply played it under conditions that weren't ideal.

 

For example, I once made the error of introducing a new game to my friends while they were experiencing World Cup fever. Although they were between matches, they continued to jabber about soccer while one of them "played" the game. My friend didn't read/hear any of the tutorial's instructions, cranked the challenge level to the hardest setting, and then declared the game to be shitty when he couldn't make it work.

 

Another friend played Battlefield: Bad Company 2 for the first time just hours after purchasing a new map pack for CoD: Modern Warfare 2. He gave up on BC2 within minutes. However, months later after he'd grown bored of Modern Warfare 2, he replayed BC2 and loved it, all the while asking incredulously "Man, why didn't I like this before?!"

 

I could cite more examples. The fact is that there's so many things that can distract a person from properly experiencing a game: a crying baby, a crowded living room, a bad internet connection, illness, holidays, a busy schedule, etc.

 

If you were a publisher, wouldn't you want to make sure that the reviewer was devoting their complete attention to your game? How many games were given less-than-stellar reviews because the writer kept stopping the game to check World Cup scores?

[Hot Heart]

Not sure if it's in-line with the topic but I've noticed some reviewers don't take account of certain factors. Not that they always can (or perhaps should), but reviewing a game is sometimes a very different experience to actually being a customer playing it.

 

First and foremost, reviewers tend to sit down and play through games for long stretches. This can work for or against a game. While repetition is never good for a game, it's easy to get burnt out this way. Some games are clearly designed for short sessions, while some benefit from a player being able to spend a long time with them.

 

Secondly, cost. This isn't always as major, but it's probably quite easy for reviewers to forget about the cost of a game, add-on, DLC, etc. Again, it can be unfair to judge a game based solely on price, but it's something that should be considered. It's probably not good practice to tell consumers to 'wait until a price drop' but I feel it may help certain sites gain a bit of loyalty if they can acknowledge gamers' habits.

 

Then again, I could be talking bullshit. I have no idea of the ins and outs of 'professional' game reviewing, but that's just my two cents.

[HotChops]

Not sure if it's in-line with the topic but I've noticed some reviewers don't take account of certain factors. Not that they always can (or perhaps should), but reviewing a game is sometimes a very different experience to actually being a customer playing it.

 

First and foremost, reviewers tend to sit down and play through games for long stretches. This can work for or against a game. While repetition is never good for a game, it's easy to get burnt out this way. Some games are clearly designed for short sessions, while some benefit from a player being able to spend a long time with them.

 

Secondly, cost. This isn't always as major, but it's probably quite easy for reviewers to forget about the cost of a game, add-on, DLC, etc. Again, it can be unfair to judge a game based solely on price, but it's something that should be considered. It's probably not good practice to tell consumers to 'wait until a price drop' but I feel it may help certain sites gain a bit of loyalty if they can acknowledge gamers' habits.

 

Then again, I could be talking bullshit. I have no idea of the ins and outs of 'professional' game reviewing, but that's just my two cents.

 

 

Are you kidding? Those are really good points! I think the price thing can work both ways too. Just Cause 2 is a pretty damn good game, but was it worth $60 in the Spring when it's just as enjoyable for $30 in the Winter?

[Hot Heart]

Can't really comment on JC2's price because I already got the PC version on release, which is significantly cheaper than the console version. I guess, like reviewers try and sum their thoughts up into a score, they could try and consider what price they'd sell the game at? Iunno...

 

But I do think Just Cause 2 may be a good example of a game for short sessions. Well, shorter sessions. It's mighty fun in parts, but it would probably get boring after a few hours. Same for a lot of sandbox games, really.