Quarter To Three Forums - View Single Post

Brad Wardell · 02-26-2006, 03:15 PM

Let's imagine hypothetically that a major game magazine or major gaming website dumped numerical ratings entirely.

Wouldn't that be cool? It would force people to read the text rather than look at numerical score / star score / whatever.

I think for hard-core gamers, it would probably be well received. I even think many casual gamers would prefer it too. A poll here on Qt3 would probably have 90% supporting this.

But personally, I'd be bummed out. First off, sites like GameRankings matter. They matter a LOT. As a game developer, it pains me how much GameRankings matters. Over the past year, I've learned just how much these ratings matter and it's depressing.

So let me share with you some experiences we've had.

How many copies will major retailer X purchase? Depends heavily on how many previews a game gets along with MDF.

How many copies will the retailer re-order? It's based on a formula (which differs from retailer to retailer of course) that roughly translates to 1st week sales = subsequent month's sales = subsequent 3 months sales = subsequent 6 months sales = subsequent year sales. Typically, when those sales drop below N turns per store per month, the game is no longer carried.

I'm not saying every retailer does this nor that those that do something like this do it just like this. But most do something like the above.

That's why it's frustrating for smaller publishers/developers to make big numbers because it's hard to get that initial high sell-in. We've learned this (the hard way) in the past and really went out to get a lot of previews and such. Master of Orion 3 sold something around 300,000 copies to GalCiv I's 75,000 units in NA. Stocking obviously matters.

But publishers get a second chance to up their store presence -- the reviews, particularly from the paper magazines.

The bloody gamerankings score comes up again and again.
The reviews from 3 of the major PC publications and a handful of the major gaming sites (depends on the buyer, some just use game rankings, some go by 3 of the gaming sites, others use all and still others don't care except for existing sales and MDF) are heavily factored in. MDF (market development funds) and that combined rating matter a lot.

That second chance can help a title that got sporadic distribution at the start to get restocked in higher quantity 60 days or so into distribution. That's when you start to see the boxes with the often misleading "Game of the year" (which drives everyone nuts I suspect) mentions on them -- see Jeff Green's comments in the latest CGW.

So if a major publication were to remove its numerical ratings or whatever, the effect is that it's essentially bowing out from being counted in those ratings.

And if the publication or website happens to be one that is really well respected, then it essentially just adds influence to the sites and publications that don't have as high a quality in their reviews.

As a gamer, I read the text of the reviews. I recognize that different reviewers have different scoring cards. One reviewer's 3.5 stars is the same as another's 80%. I understand that. Everyone here probably undertands that. But the wider world does not.

To use a World of Warcraft analogy, no matter how long you've been playing the game, if you post on the WoW forums with a character that's less than level 60, you're going to get people who will yell "n00b!" or treat you as if you don't know what you're talking about purely because of your level. It's not about fairness. It's just how things work.

So that's why I support ratings. Because the casual onlooker will browse those review scores or someone who goes back a year later to look at a game will go by those scores (I recall a heated debate here where I was accused of making "mediocre games" based purely on the game rankings average).

Whether we like it or not, people won't read the text and not eveyrone will have ready access to that text.

In case someone is wondering what made be bring this up, I had heard some things from some friends who had heard things from friends. I.e. nobody "leaked" anything to me who was told anything directly.

Just my 2 cents.

02-26-2006, 03:15 PM	#1
Brad Wardell Social Worker Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,272	Ratings in reviews vs. Text only Let's imagine hypothetically that a major game magazine or major gaming website dumped numerical ratings entirely. Wouldn't that be cool? It would force people to read the text rather than look at numerical score / star score / whatever. I think for hard-core gamers, it would probably be well received. I even think many casual gamers would prefer it too. A poll here on Qt3 would probably have 90% supporting this. But personally, I'd be bummed out. First off, sites like GameRankings matter. They matter a LOT. As a game developer, it pains me how much GameRankings matters. Over the past year, I've learned just how much these ratings matter and it's depressing. So let me share with you some experiences we've had. How many copies will major retailer X purchase? Depends heavily on how many previews a game gets along with MDF. How many copies will the retailer re-order? It's based on a formula (which differs from retailer to retailer of course) that roughly translates to 1st week sales = subsequent month's sales = subsequent 3 months sales = subsequent 6 months sales = subsequent year sales. Typically, when those sales drop below N turns per store per month, the game is no longer carried. I'm not saying every retailer does this nor that those that do something like this do it just like this. But most do something like the above. That's why it's frustrating for smaller publishers/developers to make big numbers because it's hard to get that initial high sell-in. We've learned this (the hard way) in the past and really went out to get a lot of previews and such. Master of Orion 3 sold something around 300,000 copies to GalCiv I's 75,000 units in NA. Stocking obviously matters. But publishers get a second chance to up their store presence -- the reviews, particularly from the paper magazines. The bloody gamerankings score comes up again and again. The reviews from 3 of the major PC publications and a handful of the major gaming sites (depends on the buyer, some just use game rankings, some go by 3 of the gaming sites, others use all and still others don't care except for existing sales and MDF) are heavily factored in. MDF (market development funds) and that combined rating matter a lot. That second chance can help a title that got sporadic distribution at the start to get restocked in higher quantity 60 days or so into distribution. That's when you start to see the boxes with the often misleading "Game of the year" (which drives everyone nuts I suspect) mentions on them -- see Jeff Green's comments in the latest CGW. So if a major publication were to remove its numerical ratings or whatever, the effect is that it's essentially bowing out from being counted in those ratings. And if the publication or website happens to be one that is really well respected, then it essentially just adds influence to the sites and publications that don't have as high a quality in their reviews. As a gamer, I read the text of the reviews. I recognize that different reviewers have different scoring cards. One reviewer's 3.5 stars is the same as another's 80%. I understand that. Everyone here probably undertands that. But the wider world does not. To use a World of Warcraft analogy, no matter how long you've been playing the game, if you post on the WoW forums with a character that's less than level 60, you're going to get people who will yell "n00b!" or treat you as if you don't know what you're talking about purely because of your level. It's not about fairness. It's just how things work. So that's why I support ratings. Because the casual onlooker will browse those review scores or someone who goes back a year later to look at a game will go by those scores (I recall a heated debate here where I was accused of making "mediocre games" based purely on the game rankings average). Whether we like it or not, people won't read the text and not eveyrone will have ready access to that text. In case someone is wondering what made be bring this up, I had heard some things from some friends who had heard things from friends. I.e. nobody "leaked" anything to me who was told anything directly. Just my 2 cents.