Do you think reviewers have any real influence over the industry? Does it even matter?

[Jonathan Lanza]

It's no secret that there seems to be this constant "war" between Ludophiles and Reviewers/Journalist. There's probably a billion different reasons for this but one of the ones I have noticed is the sentiment that a negative review hosted by IGN or whatever the latest Youtuber is has the ability to negatively influence people's perception of a game and thus can/will lead to to people not buying the game and sales for the game being bad. This especially becomes a "problem" when the review makes incorrect judgments (maybe they didn't know a mechanic existed or missed out on something important) or when the person "played the game wrong" leading people to think that the game got an undeserved poor score and now a bunch of potential customers have been put off by misinformation. The God Hand review by IGN is probably the most infamous example. It's not just customers though, there's a bunch of horror stories over the years about developers not getting a raise unless the game meets a certain metacritic or sequels potentially being canned because of poor reception, it all comes down to this notion that Niche Ned has no real voice and that the masses and execs are using big reviews sites and channels to make important decisions. And is this even a bad thing if true?


I personally can't remember the last time I really used a review to make any judgement calls on what I do or don't play so personally I'd say they have no sway over me. But i definitely do see (especially here) a fascination with metacritic scores to the point that people will sit on the edge of their seat waiting for the embargo's to drop. I'm not sure how much of this actually translates to sales or if people just need something to bicker about though. But on the subject of developers I can understand if they did use reviews to make certain decisions simply because I can't imagine there being any reasonable way to wading through massive amounts of opinions and figuring out what is and isn't warranted.

 

[Lashley]

Platform warriors use review scores in their wars, so I guess they have some influence.

 

[Griffith]

They don't have much influence on the industry, but they can have a very significant impact on sales.

 

[Jintor]

it's a really messy field to start throwing comparisons around in since the audiences differ so heavily even outlet to outlet let alone in comparisons between media and influencers/youtubers.

 

[Deleted member 54320]

I n f l u e n c e r s

 

[Kenzodielocke]

We know that great reviews help with sales. Right Benji

 

[tenderbrew]

They influence internal bonus targets and such, but do they influence whether a studio keeps making a type of game? 100% no. If it has an audience that drives profit they will continue making despite critics (e.g. Sonic the Hedgehog).

 

[UnlimitedRulebook]

Aren't there some companies who gave out bonuses based on metacritic scores? That's quite some influence.

Has absolutely no impact on me. Review threads are entertaining to see monkeys throw shit at each other though.

 

[Neosp]

I care more about journalists opinions than twitter/reddit/Resetera and other forums members. I'm so sick of fanboys. For Resetera every game would be 10 (even Fallout 76 or Anthem).

 

[Thera]

MC score is a big factor, so yes.
Does it have an impact on sales? With COD and FIFA sales, I will say no.
Does it have an impact on me? Of course.

 

[Masagiwa]

 

[Platy]

Great Reviews help with sales and bombas with good reviews have greater chance of coming back than bombas that are hated by critics.

See Metroid

 

[RoninChaos]

I used to care a lot about reviews and used to write them but that exercise really honed I'm on what I like and don't like. Reviewing games is not really the same as playing them leisurely and that shows sometimes when you read certain reviews by people.

Nowadays I stick with a few reviewers that have tastes that align with mine but I tend to listen to close friends and their recommendations. Reviews now are mostly used by me to find out if a game is stuffed with MTX or other bullshit and if it effects the game. I know what I like and reviews will typically tell me if there's a road block to getting to those things I like. Battle Front II being riddled with MTXs was something I expected but not to the extent that we saw and I wouldn't have known that if it wasn't for reviews.

Then again, there are plenty of reviews I've read where it's obvious the people playing the games didn't complete them. For example, all of the reviews I read about dead cells didn't discuss the difficulty spikes in later levels or the frame drop issues that were present in the switch port. I assume the first part happened because most reviewers didn't get to levels like the ramparts or the sepulcher. The second part with the frame drops I could see some people maybe not noticing. But yeah, when you read something and it's obvious the people didn't get that far into the game it can be frustrating.

I also think reviews work to validate the creative team's work, and that's a great thing. Having your work reviewed well is awesome for the folks that created the game and can lead to bonuses and accolades.

To the question, reviews definitely have an effect on the industry but it seems to be more on things like bonuses rather than sales and I think waaaaay too much value is put on metacritic.

Bottom line, there's a ton of games out there and reviews definitely serve a purpose for consumers and developers.

 

[justiceiro]

Michael pacther once said that reviews have a big impact in game sales, even more than any controversy that any journalist uncovers about bad working environment, and etc.

 

[Another Castle]

I don't typically "go by" reviews when I'm familiar with the product I'm going to receive- whether that means through knowledge of the series or studio- but it never hurts to gather a census on something you're going to buy, I think. If it isn't make-or-break, I appreciate knowing what some folks might not like about it.

So, that's just me, but I think previous replies have established they do have substantial influence. Thus, the ire directed towards their criticism.

 

[Nightengale]

Reviewers and influencers have enough of an impact - for millions of dollars in marketing money ( press events, paid-for-sponsorships, streamer slots, etc ) to be spent on them.

There's also entire industries built around things like mock reviewers to gauge what the actual market response to review scores will be.

So yes.

Money is the proof.

 

[Tempys]

Reviewers were taking points of MK11 due to the grindy/monetization aspect of the Towers. Netherrealm has already responded that they are fixing the issue. don't think that would have happened without the score reduction.

 

[LiK]

Reviews matter. Influencers' impressions matter. Most buyers who want to know if something is worth it, they'll most likely check review scores when they look up the games they're interested in. Nowadays, Metacritic is a big factor in bonuses for pubs/devs as well as using review scores to help market their games post-release aka accolades videos. I still check reviews for general impressions of games I'm on the fence with and they are legit helpful in helping me decide if it's a day one or something I can check out later. If I already want to play a game day one, I'll just buy it blind and decide if it was worth it on my own.

 

[Secretofmateria]

There was a time from about 2009-2016 where the celebrity games journalist was a real thing. Editors at ign and the like had droves of huge fans who followed not only their reviews and interests but also their personal lives as if they were tabloid celebrities. These people got so big that a lot of them realized that they as a brand had become more valuable than the sites they were at so they left to start their own projects on youtube through patreon. Sadly when they left the sites alot of them also left traditional journalism behind. They stopped hunting down news and simply resorted to reporting on other news that talented journalists like jason schreier and patrick klepeck had taken the time and energy to unearth. But then something happened, alot of these people had realized that the youtube bottom was falling out. They were losing relevancy to a new age of twitch streamers. Reviews to many of these personalities became less about an informed opinion and more about hot takes on the newest titles.

Anyway to answer your question op, no, i think sales numbers speak louder than review scores. Review scores are mostly important to console warriors looking to score another win for their favorite plastic box so that way, when bongbro69 presents the list of games for why box y is better, testicularjunction32 can reply sharply with a list of metacritic scores.

 

[NHale]

Yes they do but they are way less important than it was before and it depends on the type of game for a new IP it's massive but for established IP it's not really that important. (and I'm including influencers/twitch streamers in the mix) Now you can make your mind without relying on an arbitrary number because you have so many ways to watch and read about the game (if you know to look beyond the biased opinions especially around launch period), because a 7 can be a perfect game for you because the issues that make it a 7 might not be important for your personal preference (example: Battlefield story is terrible but you only play MP).

I don't see how FIFA 20 gets 10% less sales just because it gets a 70 metacritic instead of 80+. People decide to get a new FIFA way before reviews hit the market. The same applies for big IP and games as service like GTA, RDR, NBA 2K, Destiny etc. What makes people stop buying those games everytime they release is if the last one is bad. Not because of reviews especially because those games are focused on mainstream markets that don't know what Biogamer, Cheat2CCReviews or Gamezinga are.

On the other hand, if the game is not a huge IP then reviews are incredibly relevant. Even a well known IP like the last Tomb Raider would have sold a lot more if it got 90+ metacritic instead of the average reviews it got because even people around here that have no interest in the franchise want to be part of the experience since it got those kind of reviews. Now let's imagine Anthem, a new massive IP from EA, if it got a 85+ and popular Twitch streamers playing it, the game would not have disappear from the landscape like it did.

 

[Tiny Chihuahueño]

Of course they're influential. Their scores is what decides wether any particular AAA game will sell or not. Even casual gamers know about scores, I'd argue they even pay more attention to them because they don't actively follow the news but want to make sure if a game is good or not before buying it.

Which is sad, because if there's anyone you shouldn't trust is these reviewers who give perfect scores to any AAA game with high production values.

 

[Elephant]

They can and do absolutely have an effect on sales. Reviews have convinced me to pick up games that I wasn't interested in (Horizon Zero Dawn) and have also helped avoid hot peices of trash that I would have otherwise bought (Anthem).

However there have been many times where I've felt the consensus to be wrong. Reviewers tend to be a lot more forgiving for big AAA games, or well loved franchises, for example. It's not a perfect system, but it's a decent guideline to aid your judgement.

Bad reviews can absolutely break a game on the market. I'd be interested to see alternate timelines of sales figures, where reviewers didn't exist, and something like Mass Effect Andromeda was released into the wild. Perhaps word of mouth would have sufficed, but I have a feeling it would have been a lot more successful from a sales perspective.

 

[Gorion's Ward]

They do have an influence, although it has decreased in past few years.

Personally, I just don't read them anymore. I spent years reading reviews and listening to shows and podcasts, but could never find a reviewer I related with or a major review/opinion podcast I truly enjoyed listening to. I sometimes enjoy reading a proper review, but it'll never be able to assist me when I'm 50/50 about getting a game. I'll just hop on youtube and watch some gameplay instead.

 

[Stormkyleis]

"Shinji Mikami was upset about IGN's 3/10 for God Hand and lamented that it might have ruined his career"

 

[Y2Kev]

I would imagine they are correlated pretty strongly with sales.

 

[cowbanana]

I think that sadly the industry has more influence over reviewers because of the touchy subject of access. You don't bite the hand that feeds you access to your next click inviting day-one review - or that access will disappear as we've seen with critical reviewers no longer getting review copies. That's why the game enthusiast media (I prefer this over journalism for most sites) is pretty toothless when it comes to critical articles about publishers and shitty industry practices. They might not be "owned" but their access will evaporate if they're critical.

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

Aren't developers' bonus rely on metacritic scores?

 

[Deleted member 10737]

yeah they do. maybe a smaller role in the launch numbers, but a pretty big one in a game's continued sales.

 

[Ghostwalker]

Aren't developers' bonus rely on metacritic scores?

Click to shrink...

Any Dev that agrees to something like that should sack the half-wit that agreed to it (That included Obsidian, they make great games but I never got the impression they were that good at the business side being brought out by MS was probably for the best). You might as well allow you bonus to be decided by a Tarot cards reading.

 

[daybreak]

Yes, reviews have a significant impact on sales, just like many other industries in the broader entertainment spectrum.

I utilize reviews from people I trust for nearly every game I purchase. If I'm on the fence for a game, gameplay footage plus review scores from trusted reviewers will be what tips me one way or another.

Similarly, a game that's not on my radar at all but receives great press can drive me to purchase a game. The opposite is true, as well.

 

[LiK]

Any Dev that agrees to something like that should sack the half-wit that agreed to it. You might as well allow you bonus to be decided by a Tarot cards reading.

Click to shrink...

It's not up to the devs. The pubs usually decide on that.

 

[Mugen X]

Yes they have an influence on the industry. Myself along with a few other gamers I know all use reviews as confirmation that we should or shouldn't buy a game. I think no matter the hype behind the game, if it comes out and reviews extremely poorly, it's going to impact its sales dramatically. Take Cyberpunk for example, it's probably one if not THE most anticipated game right now, if it scores a 70 on meta (highly unlikely) there's no way that wouldn't effect people's decision to buy the game or not. Sales impact the industry, so yes review scores matter.

 

[Sesha]

Yahtzee's review of Painkiller significantly boosted its sales back in the day according to People Can Fly themselves, and I think his review of Psychonauts may have done something similar as well.

I think some reviewers still have influence, like Angry Joe, but the heyday of individual reviewers swaying public opinion and affecting sales are over. A game's quality and word of mouth matters more these days. And marketing still reigns supreme.

 

[Asuka3+1]

reviews matter a lot for the "out of the door" sales... but the longer the term the less a review matter vs Word of mouth.

 

[Jonathan Lanza]

"Shinji Mikami was upset about IGN's 3/10 for God Hand and lamented that it might have ruined his career"

Click to shrink...

Seeing stuff like this can be quite disheartening. I love God Hand, it's one of my favourites and I have to wonder just how much better it would've done and even if Clover would still be around if they got literally anyone else to review the game. There seems to be a lot of power held into a singular opinion regardless of what it may be.

 

[Prine]

Yes, absolutely. Ive come around multiple times on games due to strong reviews. Gamers opinions dont mean much to me though, unless i can gauge they have similar taste to me.

 

[Ghostwalker]

It's not up to the devs. The pubs usually decide on that.

Click to shrink...

And when the publisher put such a insane term in, the Dev should not agree to it. Contract are a two way negotiation not a publisher dictating terms and the dev saying yes sir, unless of course the Publisher owns the Developer but then in all reality they are the same thing.

 

[P A Z]

I'm gonna say no, they don't have anywhere near enough power to affect the industry as a whole.

Smaller studios that can't afford marketing? Yes as good reviews are adverts in that case.

 

[Leviathan]

Critic scores on boxes sell games to parents. The substance of reviews should sell games to gamers.

Buying a game without reading at least a few reviews is just plain idiotic. Buying a game based solely on reviews is naive. Like trailers and demos, reviews are an essential component of any reasonably informed decision to spend money on a game. If you have an unlimited budget, then I guess it doesn't matter.

Yes, reviewers are biased and only human, but it'd be silly not to make use of their impressions. It's about acknowledging that they're biased, pulling what you can from the substance of their reviews, and comparing that to what the competition thinks to Frankenstein together your own expectations for the game.

 

[astro]

It is known that metacritic scores are held as signs of success by publishers, even going as far as to affect bonuses for developers.

 

[ASaiyan]

A review score literally determines how much developers get paid on certain projects. So yeah, they matter.

 

[Deleted member 18161]

We know that great reviews help with sales. Right Benji

Click to shrink...

He asked for a permaban in the NPD thread.

 

[astro]

He asked for a permaban in the NPD thread.

Click to shrink...

No he didn't.

 

[Mercador]

There's an direct impact on sales. Crowd in here knows their stuff, they don't need reviewers to tell them that X game is good and Y game is bad. But the crowd in here is really a small percentage of the real buyers. Biggest medias got the traction of Google news and such so only one score of one game could decide for millions of sale. At least, now there's MC/OC so it's not just IGN or Gamespot anymore but I think it would be best for consumers to have a rottentomatoes of gaming (positive vs negative) and skip the scores altogether.

Disclaimer : I was a gaming "journalist" for almost 13 years

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

Any Dev that agrees to something like that should sack the half-wit that agreed to it (That included Obsidian, they make great games but I never got the impression they were that good at the business side being brought out by MS was probably for the best). You might as well allow you bonus to be decided by a Tarot cards reading.

Click to shrink...

How do you sack the person writing your pay checks?

 

[J_ToSaveTheDay]

I absolutely do think they have a pretty profound influence but I also don't think they aren't the only major factor to consider when it comes to a game's overall success.

 

[Geist 6one7]

Seems like it's the other way around really.

 

[More_Badass]

There's an direct impact on sales. Crowd in here knows their stuff, they don't need reviewers to tell them that X game is good and Y game is bad. But the crowd in here is really a small percentage of the real buyers. Biggest medias got the traction of Google news and such so only one score of one game could decide for millions of sale. At least, now there's MC/OC so it's not just IGN or Gamespot anymore but I think it would be best for consumers to have a rottentomatoes of gaming (positive vs negative) and skip the scores altogether.

Disclaimer : I was a gaming "journalist" for almost 13 years

Click to shrink...

If something's going to appeal your tastes, reviews don't matter. You like what you like. But the value of reviews isn't saying if a game is good or bad; it's seeing perspectives beyond your own tastes, the why and how something appeals or excels perhaps in ways that you never even would have considered. I probably never would have tried games like Demon's Souls, Spintires, Offworld Trading Company, and others if it weren't for reviews. Not because of scores but because of the well-written arguments of their unique merits

For causal fan or "hardcore" enthusiast alike, reviews - from sites and blogs to forums, user reviews, and comments - have great value because of that subjective perspective

 

[honest_ry]

Of course they do.

For a massive of people reviews determine if a person buys or plays a game.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Of course review scores matter to the industry. They can decide whether a game succeeds or fails, or influence a narrative behind a game. To say otherwise is to deny reality.

Do they matter to a person's subjective enjoyment of an individual game on an individual basis? That's more tricky, depending on the person.