In a world of "flops", "AAAE's", and more Game of The Year awards than you can shake a stick at, video game reviews are more important than ever. Further proof of this is in a study done by EEDAR (Electronic Entertainment Design and Research) which proves that video game review scores do indeed affect consumer behaviors. So in this blog I'd like to discuss "responsible reviewing", that is to say, reviewing with a mindset that your reviews may have an affect on people (even if they don't), and as such looking past simple gut reactions (as important as they are), and being aware that your gut reaction may be based on factors outside of the game's quality (such as hype, or the pedigree of the team behind said game), and how they may affect your opinion.
(Note: I'm going to use Red Dead Redemption as my main point of argument in this blog. I understand many people really enjoyed the game, and enjoyed it regardless of the aforementioned external, opinion-changing factors. I myself didn't like it, but I'm mainly using this game as an example because of various editorials I've seen discussing it lately that I write about a little further along in this blog.)
When Red Dead Redemption came out in May, I was just as excited as everyone else. Games from the folks over at Rockstar are usually a big deal, especially when they're the grandiose, free-roam epics on which they've established their skills as developers. Beyond that, their last major title, Grand Theft Auto IV is a true masterpiece, and is easily one of my favorite games of this generation. Needless to say, the level of hype for Red Dead Redemption was through the roof. But then I played it. While I won't go on about my opinions on Red Dead, I thought it was pretty mediocre, due in large part to inconsistency in pretty much every facet of the game.
Yet, around Red Dead Redemption's initial release date, everyone seemed to love the game, leaving me thinking I had just become some sort of jaded, cynical gamer. The game got a 9.5 here on Gamespot with a 9.3 average user rating, as well as a 95 on Metacritic. Needless to say, everyone but me loved the game.
Or so it seemed. As of late, I've read a couple articles popping up across the net that seem to question Red Dead Redemption's acclaim. The two most notable ones are articles from IGN, and BitMob. The article at IGN simply discusses the game's shortcomings, without making an outright statement that the staff's opinions on the game had changed. On the other hand, the BitMob article argues that Red Dead (and other titles that may have been "overrated") get "great scores simply because they hit the right notes for long enough to impress us."
Even though the majority of people loved Red Dead upon release, and probably still love it, I think it's great to see some reviewers go back and re-examine their initial (and highly positive) reactions to the game, and I think that should be done with more games that are susceptible to major hype. Would Resistance 2, a game that's widely regarded as being markedly worse than its predecessor still receive the acclaim it did? If people really stopped to look at the value, and (lack of) features in Halo 3: ODST, would it have been as highly recommended? Maybe, maybe not.
While expressing one's gut reaction to a game when crafting a review for it is quite important, so is awareness. I remember blasting my way through Perfect Dark Zero's singleplayer campaign and numerous multiplayer matches in a day or two, and then reviewing it. I believe I gave it a 9.8, and probably hailed it "greatest shooters of all time" or something ridiculous like that. In retrospect, Perfect Dark Zero was an enjoyable game, but my level of sheer excitement brought about by playing on of the first next-gen game ever kept me from reasonably assessing its quality.
So my point in all this? Simply try to be aware off factors which may sway your review toward being overly positive or negative when assessing a game. And if you think you are guilty of "irresponsible reviewing" (something which we probably all are), go back and make some edits (while still respecting your initial reaction). The gut-reaction is simultaneously one of the most important, and dangerous things there is when it comes to reviewing video games. Without them, I'd imagine reviews to be something akin to an algorithm which spits out a number between 1 and 10. However, because of them, we can end up facing the problem of irresponsible reviewing. So, the next time you decide to review a game, really sit down, think over your opinions, and review responsibly.
REFERENCES:
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/07/06/eedar-smu-study-review-scores-affect-perceived-quality-purchas/
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/110/1108433p1.html
http://www.bitmob.com/articles/is-red-dead-redemption-really-a-great-game