Why Game Developers Hate Reviewers at GameDaily

Remove all ads!

GameDaily has looked into the sentiments devs have for reviewers. Here's an excerpt from the result:

They smile at junkets, exchange pleasantries at E3 and treat the enthusiast press exceptionally well, but behind closed doors, many game developers take a dim view of videogame reviewers. Media Coverage looks at the key reasons why and asks you for more.

This week I received a late night phone call on the Media Coverage hotline. It was from an old friend who, years ago, made the perilous leap from videogame journalism to videogame development. This week he was not happy.

"I hate videogame reviewers." As usual, he rushed directly to the point. The guy who regularly savaged games in concise, laser-targeted articles was now steaming over a couple 100 word reviews. His transition from game critic to critical-target changed his perspective on this whole enthusiast press thing.

Read the rest at GameDaily.

 

That was interesting. I'm surprised there wasn't a complaint along the lines of "game reviewers see so many games that they get too jaded and don't really relate well to your average gamer". In other words, Game A comes out, and gets a great review. A couple of months later, Game B comes out, and is similar to Game A (not due to copying, but just timing), so it gets a "been-there-done-that" ho hum review. In actual fact, Game B might be a better game than Game A. Many, if not most, gamers haven't bought Game A yet, and if choosing between hte two, should buy Game B, but buy Game A instead and ignore Game B just because of the reviews.

 

If magazine/site publishers are genuinely interested in game reviewers putting enough hours into gameplay, the solution is to pay them more, not replace them with cheaper labor. The supply of all the people who would love to be published game reviewers is enormous which tends to depress the word/article rate that's paid for reviews, but in the long run that "let's replace reviewers with cheaper newbies" attitude nets you either...

- A continuing cycle of writers who know how to cut corners and can still deliver readable reviews, in which case you tend to get incomplete and inaccurate reviews, or
- Writers who are so eager to write about a particular subject that they don't mind the poor pay, in which case you tend to get overly positive reviews because playing their favorite games/genres doesn't "count as work."

 

To me, there is no better tester than the gamer itself.Too many times (for my own taste) I´ve read and said that these are the places when many developer should look and find thier mistakes and goals.Take a better look if any of you people want to be sure of this.Read every single post here or any similar websites and (Oh,surprise!) you´ll find a hell of a lot reviews of people who put their espectances and hopes on a game(many of us save money trough monts to buy it).This people is not underpaid,hated or short-timed; they just want a fair trade for what they´ve paid.

 

I've given up with pretty much all game reviews - the only site I trust is RPG Codex, which despite their bias do actually give a balanced review. 'Sure, that might be a nice feature for <this group of tools>, but it has no place in an RPG. <These tools> will find it enjoyable, however.'

 

I usually trust Amazon.com and uk reviews as they are played by gamers themselves. Having said that, some idiots like to give 5 stars or 1 stars to games that are not even completed.