Comments on: First Reviews Score 6% Higher Than Average

By: Riceboy

Riceboy — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:59:00 +0000

this is partly the reason i stopped buying printed games media. Official Playstation Magazine UK was particualary responsible for this. – cash for the exclusive, then being extra nice to the publisher to keep a good relationship.

BUT BUT BUT!! you could say its not corruption/capitalism whatever, but that people are influenced by others opinions. for example pitchfork.com <— music magazine site, always posts the review after each album has been sat on metacritic for a while – then tends to go with the status quo. – being insecure about what the readership will agree with, and sitting on it – is as much bad journalism as taking the exclusive.

So yeah, really interesting article. statistically confirmed me suspicions.

(^^ holy shit there is an unintended status quo pun in there. eurgh i need a shower)

By: Citizen Erased

Citizen Erased — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 16:41:04 +0000

Pretty interesting data.
Whenever I’ve read an “exclusive” review I’ve usually taken it with a grain of salt anyway, perhaps even subtracting around 5 or 6% from the score in my head.
It’s great to see it all laid out like this though.

Journalism and all that.

By: name

name — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:31:14 +0000

its quite obvious why.
most companys wont let you review their games at a certain time unless your willing to give it a certain score.
like MGS4 or batman arkham asylum.
that and most sites get paid off for their reviews.
how people can even think, let alone write, let alone discuss on the internet giving halo ODST over a 8.
these people either need their head examined or stop being payed under the table!

By: Nintendoll

Nintendoll — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:20:08 +0000

@Hopper

Unfortunately, most of us here at NG do other things besides write for the site. Due to time constraints, 20 was the doable number. If you feel like this isn’t a large enough sample, you can take Wardrox’s research and add your own to it to increase the accuracy. That’s why he posted all of his research: so people could take it one step further :)

By: player66

player66 — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:19:46 +0000

Interesting article. It’s great to see all of the data laid out like that. I think lots of us have been thinking this was true, but the data doesn’t lie.

By: Wex

Wex — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:04:00 +0000

MATHS. JOURNALISM.

By: bg93

bg93 — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:52:02 +0000

I see your point but look at, say, inFamous. Great game, 9.0 by most reviews but then later reviews undermark it to a 7. late review aren’t always more reliable. Uncharted 2 is raking in 10s now. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t deserve a 10. But the article is still true, which is why I READ reviews instead of a score.

By: Mark "junglistgamer"

Mark "junglistgamer" — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:00:36 +0000

Although it’s complete speculation on my part, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a correlation between preview coverage and these higher reviews. Not necessarily in an underhanded or corrupt way, just that I imagine the kind of publications that get access to exclusive reviews have probably been doing a lot of preview coverage on a given game as well. If you’ve been constantly exposed to the PR surrounding a game, you may end up giving something a slightly higher score as a result.

By: Hopper

Hopper — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:27:12 +0000

Really? You compiled data from TWENTY articles? You’re going to have to do a lot better than that to impress me.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:10:57 +0000

@The@TheGyro: You don’t seem to understand how statistics work. The number 5 is not enough to determine whether it’s random or not, the standard deviation is needed and if 5 > the standard deviation, then it can be determined either way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:02:16 +0000

For those without openoffice: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AsTYAe-5HtMNdEpvVWxDeE5SbnQ4c2Fqc2hNaUNwblE&hl=en

By: TheGyro

TheGyro — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:21:47 +0000

Am I the only one who is kinda releived that the figure is only around 5%? I had always assumed corporate bullshit was more common.
This almost proves it to be no existant. 5% is enough to be a random figure.

Oh well. Time to take the foil hat off, methinks. Maybe I *could* do with some sunshine…

By: PY

PY — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:05:36 +0000

It’s not really as surprising as it seems. It’s very easy to get swayed by reviews, relatively minor issues you’d never normally have thought were important suddenly seem a lot more so, when you put them in the same context as another review.

Maybe I’m just optimistic, but I see this more of an example of how easily people are swayed by opinion than any possible shady dealings. Maybe the first review is the MOST honest, not the least.