The “user review” is standard at gaming websites now. This means you don’t just have an “expert opinion” argued by one of their writers or freelancers, you get a rating derived from how an army of gamers evaluated the game and a few brief reviews from some of these same people. 1up, IGN, Gamerankings…all have some way of getting into your gaming brain. Using this rough metric of popularity, by the way, Gamespot is clearly the number one gaming site. It has ten times the user votes for Battle for Middle Earth II that IGN has. Some games only get a few dozen votes, but those popular ones that have thousands of votes, make them as close to “public opinion” as you can get in this hobby.
And you know what? According to Gamespot, reviewers are too hard on games.
Mind you, I only looked at the sixty strategy games that Gamespot reviewed in 2006. So this is probably not a representative sample or anything like that. My SPSS license expired years ago, anyway. But, until I start seeing box scores in the Washington Post again, this will have to do to sate my stats fix.
The average user score was almost a full point higher than the Gamespot score. The biggest difference (UFO: Aftershock) was over three points, and there were over 500 user submitted scores. Rise of Legends had over 2000 user votes and the people think that Gamespot’s reviewer missed it by a point. The combined wisdom of 773 voters agrees with me that Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War is an underappreciated title.
Of these sixty strategy titles, only ten had user scores lower than the official one (usually not by much) with Dominions 3 being the bigger loser (7.6 from the people, 8.2 from the corp) but with only 89 votes. 3500 people think the official ruling on Galactic Civilizations II was a tiny bit too generous.
These votes are a great way to find out who is playing what (or who is claiming to be playing what). The three most voted on strategy games from 2006 were Empire at War, Company of Heroes and BfME2. There were more votes for The Apprentice than for Birth of America, Moscow to Berlin: Red Siege or Brigade E5.
You also learn that some people will like anything. 4 voters consider Moscow to Berlin: Red Siege to be “great”. 19 people think Left Behind: Eternal Forces is “perfect”.
What about the user reviews themselves? They range from fanboy blather to anti-fanboy hate, but barely ten per cent of voters bother to submit reviews. You can see that the much maligned 7-9 scale is still strong with the people, since a 5 or 6 score is often tied with a few words lambasting a game – “overrated” seems to be the most popular word. But by and large, over the long run, fans seem to write more than detractors. The short term seems to be the opposite.
The big business question is who pays attention to these numbers, besides armchair pundits like me? There are hundreds of user reviews for Company of Heroes, and I’m not going to read them. Do developers take solace from the fact that most users think that Gamespot was too hard on Joint Task Force? Do Gamespot editors scan the user reviews looking for the next Jason Ocampo? On all these sites you can vote for reviews or reviewers you find useful, but is this any more than ego stroking? Does this democratization of opinion prevent us from having the net cluttered with fly-by-night gaming websites competing for eyeballs?
They’re great, don’t get me wrong. Anything that lets users feel like a part of your site is something to be applauded. And they can, I suppose, point friends to their reviews. But I wonder if the website managers think that these votes and user opinions are part of the community.