Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PlayStation (Games) Entertainment Games

Study Shows Word Of Mouth Makes, Breaks Videogames 60

Posted by simoniker from the ngage-is-great-pass-it-on dept.
Thanks to GameSpot for their analysis of a new Zelos Group study on videogaming, in which it's calculated that "...over 70 percent of respondents say conversations with friends are the primary means for securing information on games." The study co-ordinator elaborates further, reporting that "...face-to-face conversations with friends is the primary source for information about games, with websites coming in second. Instant messaging among friends is probably the second most influential kind of word of mouth communication, and then online forums." However, he has this dire caveat: "Forums offer publishers the most direct influence over word of mouth outside of guerilla marketing techniques, but online forums are inherently full of noise: 'fanboy' rants and antisocial behavior foremost."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Study Shows Word Of Mouth Makes, Breaks Videogames More

Study Shows Word Of Mouth Makes, Breaks Videogames

Comments Filter:

  • because the Games Press are biased. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by henbane ( 663769 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @07:39AM (#7500947)
    Of course people listen to their friends. How is it that game reviews are almost all uniformly over 7/10 even though most of the stuff is trash? If the gaming press had respect for their readers rather than the publishers and junkets people might actually listen to them over what their friends might say.

    • Re:because the Games Press are biased. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @09:18AM (#7501213) Homepage Journal
      and if it's an exclusive it's almost always 90+.

      and if it's an interview, it's ALWAYS HYPING UP the product.

      it's like if sports interviewers were always "certain" that the guy they just interviewed was going to be the champion(and they interviewed 20+ guys per day).. who would listen to their opinions then anyways? pc game mags _had_ some rep, back in beginning '90s(properiaty platform spesific mags never had any reputation to begin with.. except as a good source for cheat codes and guides).

      so the way to find out if a game is worth buying is either to ask around or play the game somewhere.

      i stopped buying/reading game mages some 8 years ago when it became already painfully obvious that either i would have already 'tested' the game(somehow, you figure it out) or they were making up the so called review from screenshots(and for real reviews, there was no comparision for asking around irc even back then).

      • Re:because the Games Press are biased. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @11:15AM (#7501977) Homepage
        Agreed

        Many readers won't go past the initial two paragraphs in an article. Many Game sites have the annoying habit of starting an article by reprinting the publisher's press release, without even bothering to strip out the obvious factual mistakes... like declaring Grand Theft Auto 3 "Only for the XBox!"

        Once you get past that, they're excited about the new hyper-realtime plasma chain-combo burst processed fighting style, which means absolutely nothing except it has a nifty (but forced) combo system. They parrot much of the official publisher line, they love all of new features... They don't yet know how anything actually works after only 3 hours of play, but the guy that gave them the disk said everything was perfect, right?

        Games are reviewed by people who want to review games. If someone on your staff is a football fan, you're going to give them NFL 2K4 to review. If they love FPS games, they get the new Half-Life. Neither of these reviews will reflect the opinion of the person sitting on the fence wondering what to buy. How will that guy who has played every other Legacy of Kain game to death feel about the new one? Why, he'll love it, and give it a 9.7. Greatest Game Ever. This, of course, doesn't really help anyone.

        If sites are going to be consumer reports, where are the side-by-side comparisons? How does one decide between Warcraft 3: Frozen Throne, Age of Mythology: Titans, and Empires: Dawn of the Modern World? What does one invest their time and money into? If sites are trying to be the next Siskel and Ebert, where are the deep, probing social correlations? Where does Max Payne 2 fit into our societal consciousness? Right now we're still at the level of "This game ROXX!!!!" or "This game SUXX!!!!"

        Part of the problem is definitely the quality of writing in online gaming journalism. People grew up expounding on the quality of one game or another, and carry that style into their professional lives. "How did you like such-and-such a game?" "I loaded it up with anticipation, but it sucked. 7.9" Certainly this personal style can be interesting and easy to read, but it leads to a superficial understanding of the situation. Furthermore, it leads to juvenile descriptions of what the reviewers would like to do with the female character's breasts, long-winded sidetracks onto subjects which have little to do with the matter at hand, logorrhea, and plain old fashioned bad grammar.

        The most useful part of any magazine was the section where 4 reviewers were constrained to one paragraph and a score, combining directness, succinctness, and judgement. Losing your audience was not an option, as you had very little space within which to formulate an opinion on a game. And no matter how many people you had on staff, you were unlikely to have 4 that happened to be huge soccer game fans. Hype was often balanced by objectivity or downright dourness, and overall the impression left behind of the game was pretty solid.

        Sadly, such varied formats have been whitewashed by the world wide web, where page constraints have disappeared. In gaming publication's heyday, there would be a special hype 4-page section for upcoming buzzworthy games, a 1 page section for upcoming games that may or may not be cool, a "quick clips" page for small releases, 1 or 2 page reviews of released games, the 1 paragraph condensed review galleria, a 1 page perspective piece on the industry, a rumors page, letters, and an in-depth strategy guide. Now sites have 4 page reviews, a "news" section that they haven't really focused on since 2000, and strategy guides for subscribers. Only the games that everyone already knows about make it to the front page (Legacy of Kain has been sitting on Gamespot's front page for about a month now), and smaller titles get lost in the shuffle. So much text is generated that the signal is lost in the noise.

        If online 'zines are to be relevant again, they need to re-think their formula. Condensed information, available now, from passably elo

        • Games are reviewed by people who want to review games. If someone on your staff is a football fan, you're going to give them NFL 2K4 to review. If they love FPS games, they get the new Half-Life. Neither of these reviews will reflect the opinion of the person sitting on the fence wondering what to buy. How will that guy who has played every other Legacy of Kain game to death feel about the new one? Why, he'll love it, and give it a 9.7. Greatest Game Ever. This, of course, doesn't really help anyone.

          Thi

    • This will not be one of those posts with a million links. That being said, I used to think the same thing as you. The reason you think that is you usually have to look for reviews of bad games. Reviews of Rugrats In Paris or whatever are obviously not going to be hot articles.

      Also, I speak from experience. Call me a mindless consumer if you want, but I pick up around 90% of games across all 4 platforms that get good ratings. Guess what I found out? The reviews are usually right!

      On the Internet though, I w
      • One thing I noticed IGN's review of Mario Kart, and in many other games recently, is that the reviewers keep talking about what the game "could have been." You read repeatedly about what the reviewer expected to see from title X, and when they didn't get what they expected, they give it a less-than-stellar review.

        I think that's a terrible way to rate games. The best way to ruin a movie is to go in with high expectations, or a preconceived notion of what the movie "should be." It's the same thing for ga
        • Having bought Mario Kart: DD today, I gotta say that the reviews make a very good point. I'm not sure about your familiarity with the Mario Kart series, but if you've been playing since the SNES version then you would probably have the same opinion.

          They're also pointing out one of Nintendo's biggest problems recently, lack of innovation. Nintendo hasn't pushed the envelope on anything recently, Zelda: WW barely avoided being Zelda: OoT with better graphics and a lame baton instead of the Ocarina. Much bett
    • I know, PBS/NPR needs to start reviewing games!
    • I think of my absolute favorite examples of exactly that is the massive cover preview EGM did of Enter the Matrix the month before it came out, treating it as if it were God himself's very gift to gamingkind. Then - after waiting two printing months to review it because Dave [dperry.com] didn't want anyone (snicker) "giving away the storyline," EGM completely trashed it, and has since had at least one Dave Perry joke per issue.

      So what happened EGM (and kin)? What do these kind of generous previews do to your reputat

  • BS word of mouth (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I think its ironic how many word of mouthers merely quote from websites and game trailers rather than actually play the game in question.
    • Maybe you should get some new friends that actually play the games and tell you their honest opinions.
    • Very true. Just a few weeks ago when I went to the local GameStop to pick up the new Castlevania game for the PS2 they guy behind the counter thought it important that he told me how good it was.

      However, I had just read the GameSpot review before going to the store and everything he told me was almost word for word out of that review.

      • Of course, they're not talking about word of mouth from the GameStop guy, they're talking about people you know, who's opinions you would generally trust. I spent about half an hour at GameStop yesterday listening to them (waiting for Mario Kart to come in since I had other places to go but had to buy things like milk that wouldn't do well in the car if I had to wait longer), and their full intent is to sell the games coming out that day (or week), get pre-orders, and sell used games, even if people obvious

  • of course fanboy rants (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Apreche ( 239272 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @07:52AM (#7500969) Homepage Journal
    It's obvious that most online forums are full of fanboy rants. The types who post those rants are the types with no friends, so their only social interaction is the chance that some other fanboy or some other normal person will agree/disagree with their extreme fanboy point of view on a forum and they might have a conversation (flame war).

    People who have friends often buy games based on what their friends say for two reasons. Reason one is they are friends because they have similar taste and they buy and like the same games. Reason two is that friends are often poor and will communicate with each other so they don't both buy the same games and therefore maximize their game/$ ration.
    • me too am quite unable to type ratio without adding an 'n'
      ration ration ration
      true !
      ;-)

    • Unfortunately most Multiplayer games require that each person have a copy of the software, so that everyone has to buy a copy of it.

      As for consoles and single player computer games, you're spot on.

      usually the [fanboy / normal] people ratio is lower as the games get worse. A blessing and a curse.
    • Does that also include usenet?

      I've used Usenet as my primary source for game reviews since I first discovered the thing back in college. Yeah, you still have the fanboys, the flamewars, spammers and trolls but once you filter those out you're left with opinions from folks who have actually played the game through to completion - something that most reviewers don't (can't) do.

      How many times have you played a game where the first few levels are reall fun, then suddenly the thing gets so difficult you end u
  • So how does that explain the travesty that is the multi million sales of Enter the Matrix?

    • Re:Enter the Matrix (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Lots of people liked it. It was a good game. Your opinion is not the majority.

      • Re:Enter the Matrix (Score:2, Interesting)

        by jrc313 ( 168973 )
        Show me a single positive review of it then. Personally I think that the reason it sold so well may have something to do with the fact that review copies were only made available after the game had shipped.

        • Re:Enter the Matrix (Score:2, Informative)

          by nifboy ( 659817 )
          that's easy; GameFAQs [gamefaqs.com] has well over 30 reviews of Enter the Matrix (and not just one-line "This game suxxors!" but reviews with some actual depth to them). It's a good measure of public opinion on a game, since the volunteer reviewers for any given game are more or less ordinary people (and the occasional importer) who might reccomend/complain about the game to their friends.

          For those too lazy to actually look at the site, review scores for the PS2 version of Enter the Matrix typically are in the 7-9 rang

          • I'm not sure I believe the GameFAQs ratings either... people there tend to think according to the following rating scale:

            10 = good
            9 = pretty good
            8 = worth playing
            7 = worth a rent
            5 = crap
            3 = really awful
            1 = hockey puck

            Notice how the level of "crap" is at 5/10. And the fanboys write those reviews too, so you'll get people give 10s to just about anything.

          • I, for one, loved the game. It suffered from the 'you must die X times per level to figure out the One True Path' problem a few times, and some levels really were of the 'the AI will allow you to win randomly,' and at times it didn't make it too clear about what to do next, or how to beat a boss.

            Overall, though I think it was worth playing; there were some wonderful little twists, you got to whomp on Trinity, and Matrix Reloaded makes much more sense after you play it.

        • Re:Enter the Matrix (Score:2, Informative)

          by jasoncart ( 573937 )
          Will these do?

          Worthplaying [worthplaying.com] - Xb - 91%
          Gamers Hell [gamershell.com] - PC - 86%
          Ferrago [ferrago.com] - PS2 - 82%
          Gamesradar [msn.co.uk] - PS2 - 81%

          • Well, the gamer's hell review, which gave it an 8.6 overall, and an 8.7 for gameplay, included the following:

            you are the passenger, unfortunately the AI [driver] has no clue what the hell it is suppose [sic] to do. I had to stop playing and wait for the first patch to fix this because I couldn't get past the levels with the AI driving.

            Sounds like quality to me - what would a game with poor gameplay consist of for that reviewer?

            • Re:Enter the Matrix (Score:4, Funny)

              by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @10:30AM (#7501617) Homepage Journal
              i dunno..

              the last good review i saw in a game magazine was from 1989 or something.

              the review said (in finnish): "sh*tty commando clone".

              nothing else, i guess nothing else was needed really though. and this from a magazine that would have usually written several paragraphs about any shit game.
        • Gameinformer magazine gave it an 8.5. They're one of the top-selling game magazines in the USA.
    • Because people like the matrix franchise.

      I picked it up used.

      It was an obviously unfinished game. Bugs galore. Controls were awkward a times.

      But the story was prime.

  • get a warez friend (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DrSkwid ( 118965 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:24AM (#7501041) Journal
    I just ask him which are worth trying

    If there's one great quality filter it's having 10 new games a week to try

  • I thought /. was the primary source of information for games! O_O

  • Tomodachi (Score:4, Insightful)

    by shione ( 666388 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:31AM (#7501063) Journal
    Probably because people are more inclined to listen to their friends than some review site which could have been paid to say good things about something. A friend is more likely to point out the bad points about a game than the good things (case in point a disatisfied customer will tell x number of people, but a satisfied customer will only tell y number. wher x>y). People tend to remember bad things more easily and when they play a game, the apsects they dont like seem to make a bigger impact on their impression of the game.

  • useless forums (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bazzargh ( 39195 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:36AM (#7501073)
    The thing that really drove it home for me how bad forums are is this set of reviews [gamers.com] for Rockstar's Manhunt title - not released until this Thursday.

    This site lets users review games before they're even out. As a result, there's a bizarre mix of "10/10 it will r00l", "1/10 this game is sick", along with 10/10s from people who never bothered to change the default rating (and are just asking where to get a demo), and oddest of all, people who rate it from 5-9 based on their understanding of screenshots and rumours.

    Worst. Review. Ever.

    And I'd just like to take this opportunity to rate Half-Life 3 a 7.5 out of 10 - I expect solid gameplay and stunning graphics, and some nice twists, but to be ultimately left wanting more. Can't wait for its release in, er, 2006.

    -Baz
    • And I'd just like to take this opportunity to rate Half-Life 3 a 7.5 out of 10 - I expect solid gameplay and stunning graphics, and some nice twists, but to be ultimately left wanting more. Can't wait for its release in, er, 2006.

      If Half-Life 3 comes out in 2006, I'd give it a 9.5/10 just for the speed of development! By the current rate (assuming Half-Life 2 comes out in mid-2004), Half-Life 3 will be due out in 2011!

    • Re:useless forums (Score:3, Insightful)

      by indros13 ( 531405 ) *
      This is why features like Amazon's "was this review helpful?" are essential to user review sites. Just like Slashdot's moderation and meta-moderation systems, you have to check the checkers.

  • I wouldent go so far as to say it makes or breaks Video games, but it does have some impact. For instance when I started playing Final Fantasy 7 I played for maybe 10 minutes and stoped. The Graphics (in my young feeble oppinion) were terible, the horse hoves and all. But then I heard from a few friends that it was really a great game and not to let the Graphics get me down. I played it, and loved it! Also some people go by reviews alone, That never works, we shouldent let what other people think change whe

  • Artificial forum members? (Score:5, Funny)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @09:00AM (#7501132)
    I wonder if any companies are fielding artificial forum participants. A bit of programming, a bit of AI, and you could create software that automatically writes short postings to a forum and masquerades as a person. An artificial forum member does not need to pass the Turing test because it does not need to respond coherently to any and all questions.

    A business could then spawn multiple copies with different personality tweaks or language usage parameters and let them post freely to online forums. Over the years, such artificial agents would likely become respected and carry great weight with other participants. Of course, these pseudo-posters would have carefully tuned fanboy/troll behaviors that tend to tout the company and trash the competition. Constant presence on the forum and subtle messages would bias the forum's mood toward the company.

    Hmmm....are all members of /. real? How do we know?

    • I think it's a lot cheaper to just hire a minimum wage 16 year old to post such things than to develop even a minimal sort of AI for that. And the 16 year old will look authentic.

      I personally am an AI of course. That's top secret, but since you won't believe me, that doesn't matter :-)

      • Re:Artificial forum members? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        The company I work for has recently launched some new products in Asia, and I was gobsmacked when I found out the advertising agency actually does this. We are talking 5-10 people per country, focus them for a week or so, and get onto every forum they can get into and create a buzz. Apparently they have groups of accounts they keep ticking over on the forums to keep them credible, then when there is a new launch of a product (esp. when there is downloadable movies, flash games, etc) and pimp them. Price is
    • Hmmm....are all members of /. real? How do we know?

      You don't. For example, for all you know I could be two lab mice involved in an elaborate plot to TAKE OVER THE WORLD! Which we aren't, of course. Really.

      ...SHIT! Pinky, I think we just blew our cover.

    • " I wonder if any companies are fielding artificial forum participants."

      Well, while they may not be using computers to do it, they certainly plant forum participants. This is PR 101. They do it all the time, there's people on Slashdot who have been ousted for doing it in the past. That is why when I look for information on the product, I look at the product page to find out all the good stuff, and I read reviews of people who hated it for the bad stuff, because there's always the possibility of a "good

  • We're tired (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by lowmagnet ( 646428 )
    We're tired of clicking through Nokia N-Gage ads to get to the front page of game sites. We are also tired of clicking through Nokia N-Gage ads to get to articles. Also, we are tired of clicking through N-Gage ads to get to screenshots, or the next 'page' of the review.

  • In another study.. (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    the results show that when toasted, bread becomes crunchy.

  • Online forums and fanboy rants (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    ...online forums are inherently full of noise: 'fanboy' rants and antisocial behavior foremost.

    But enough about Slashdot already!

  • This only makes sense... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by amuro98 ( 461673 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @03:33PM (#7504351)
    One of the biggest problems I have with reviews is trying to figure out the underlying biases the reviwer already has. As mentioned by another poster, if you give a FPS fan Max Payne 2 for a review, you're going to get a review that's going to be biased towards a good rating, in general.

    Likewise, if you gave someone who hates RPGs FFXI to review, it's going to get a horrible rating, unless it's a phenomenal game.

    With friends, you already know them a lot better - and they also know you. So if you ask a friend about whether you'll like a game or not, you can be fairly sure that the answer they give you will be pretty accurate. It's not fool-proof, a friend of mine and I like RPGs a lot, but our opinions on FFVIII are very different. Still, it's a lot better than trying to look at the reviews in magazines or online websites to determine if the game is worth your money.
  • This is sort of a "duh" concept, isn't it? What sells a video game? If it "looks cool". And to find out if it's as cool as it looks? You ask your buddy, who's already played it. I wouldn't trust some bozo in a magazine or on a review site, because I want a personalized response.
  • ...I would point out that friends may have similar tastes and thus the expectation match between a friend's review will be higher than with a magazine/website review.
    In other words it is highly likely that the buyer will increasingly trust friends from experience, so the result is to be expected.

Slashdot Top Deals

God help those who do not help themselves. -- Wilson Mizner

Close