Re: Madden NFL 13 Review (PS3/360)
1) Many people who review Madden (see IGN, Gamespot, etc.) are not Madden players. They maybe play Madden a few times with friends or for the review. It's not the equivalent of reviewing a game, say like Mass Effect 3, where the review is based upon hours and hours of play in which the game is "beaten" at least once.
Even people who are frequent Madden players are only reviewing Madden after a few hours/days of play. Many of Madden's problems come out after a week, too quickly for many of the real problems to come out. See Operation Sport's review of NCAA 12 (http://www.operationsports.com/revie...all-12-review/) which received an 8.5 even though it was so broken as to be flat-out unplayable for many.
1a) Some review sites actually farm out some of their reviews to other people on the cheap. So they'll pay some person on the internet say $40 (fictional number) to write a review of a game. This of course does not stop them from putting their name on the review.
2) Reviewers often have different goals and interests. First, they're looking at the game differently than a player. A great example of this is reviews of Diablo 3 which stated they were ignoring the log-in problems players were having because they can't review that. Well, as a player log-in problems have a huge impact on my ability to enjoy the game but many reviewers don't take that stance. I suppose in trying to be "objective" they remove themselves too far from a player's viewpoint (who the review is for). Second, reviewers are individuals who hold unique viewpoints. I play Madden only for franchise, so reviewers who weren't as invested in franchise won't capture the parts of Madden that are important to me (and related problems).
3) Review sites are often, intentionally or not, in the pockets of the companies they review. Because so much of the information and perks they receive is dependent on these companies, they will often , again intentionally or not, kowtow to these companies. A great example of this again is Diablo 3 (http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii) which saw high consumer dissatisfaction coupled with incredibly high reviews. This is not to say that this is always or even often the case but that it is a factor to keep in mind.
1) Many people who review Madden (see IGN, Gamespot, etc.) are not Madden players. They maybe play Madden a few times with friends or for the review. It's not the equivalent of reviewing a game, say like Mass Effect 3, where the review is based upon hours and hours of play in which the game is "beaten" at least once.
Even people who are frequent Madden players are only reviewing Madden after a few hours/days of play. Many of Madden's problems come out after a week, too quickly for many of the real problems to come out. See Operation Sport's review of NCAA 12 (http://www.operationsports.com/revie...all-12-review/) which received an 8.5 even though it was so broken as to be flat-out unplayable for many.
1a) Some review sites actually farm out some of their reviews to other people on the cheap. So they'll pay some person on the internet say $40 (fictional number) to write a review of a game. This of course does not stop them from putting their name on the review.
2) Reviewers often have different goals and interests. First, they're looking at the game differently than a player. A great example of this is reviews of Diablo 3 which stated they were ignoring the log-in problems players were having because they can't review that. Well, as a player log-in problems have a huge impact on my ability to enjoy the game but many reviewers don't take that stance. I suppose in trying to be "objective" they remove themselves too far from a player's viewpoint (who the review is for). Second, reviewers are individuals who hold unique viewpoints. I play Madden only for franchise, so reviewers who weren't as invested in franchise won't capture the parts of Madden that are important to me (and related problems).
3) Review sites are often, intentionally or not, in the pockets of the companies they review. Because so much of the information and perks they receive is dependent on these companies, they will often , again intentionally or not, kowtow to these companies. A great example of this again is Diablo 3 (http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii) which saw high consumer dissatisfaction coupled with incredibly high reviews. This is not to say that this is always or even often the case but that it is a factor to keep in mind.
Comment