wraggster
February 20th, 2009, 20:11
Quite the popular topic was discussed here at DICE once again in a panel called The Impact of Reviews on Game Design. The panel featured five industry insiders, namely Julianne Greer from The Escapist, Danny Bilson, senior vice president and creative director at THQ, Mona Hamilton, VP of marketing at Capcom, Rich Hilleman, chief creative officer at EA, and Chris Taylor from Gas Powered Games.
The first question posed was whether or not games were made to cater to reviewers first in order to net high review scores and thereby take in great sales. The obvious answer was "no" as everyone on the panel agreed that games are made for the players, and it's just the hope that reviewers happen to fit into the fan base of the title.
Rich Hilleman brought up the notable point that the games he has worked on has always had a target gamer as its audience, but that in many cases it isn't him. In other words, he's worked hard to separate his own tastes from those of who he's making games for.
The next topic was whether or not advertising affects review scores through perspective influence. The common answer was that it didn't have a direct influence, though some folks on the panel thought it had a greater influence than others. No one, however, said that it had a major impact.
Some folks on the panel began talking about how publisher executives place way too much importance on metacritic scores, and even just potential metacritic scores as guesstimates can be used to set the budget for the title before it has even really gotten underway.
A common agreement is that aggregate review scores, like what metacritic does, is a flawed system because it gives major and respected publications the same weight as a guy in his basement who plays games for 10 minutes before reviewing them.
http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/955/955620p1.html
The first question posed was whether or not games were made to cater to reviewers first in order to net high review scores and thereby take in great sales. The obvious answer was "no" as everyone on the panel agreed that games are made for the players, and it's just the hope that reviewers happen to fit into the fan base of the title.
Rich Hilleman brought up the notable point that the games he has worked on has always had a target gamer as its audience, but that in many cases it isn't him. In other words, he's worked hard to separate his own tastes from those of who he's making games for.
The next topic was whether or not advertising affects review scores through perspective influence. The common answer was that it didn't have a direct influence, though some folks on the panel thought it had a greater influence than others. No one, however, said that it had a major impact.
Some folks on the panel began talking about how publisher executives place way too much importance on metacritic scores, and even just potential metacritic scores as guesstimates can be used to set the budget for the title before it has even really gotten underway.
A common agreement is that aggregate review scores, like what metacritic does, is a flawed system because it gives major and respected publications the same weight as a guy in his basement who plays games for 10 minutes before reviewing them.
http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/955/955620p1.html