Video Game Scores Need To Go

#1
I basically had a little rant about video game scores and why we need to get rid of them, as not only they damage games, but games, gamers and developers. I'm interested to hear other people's thoughts on numbers and how games are reviewed, do you think there's a huge problem? Or do you just not care and only read reviews to see what score an outlet gave a game (which is perfectly fine, you're entitled to do that.)

http://danielswitzer.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/video-game-scores-need-to-go/ From here (edited as it was larger than 10000 characters)

Amazon have started adding Metacritic scores on to their site now, displaying a number alongside various video games. Yes, so now when a website gives an 7.5 or 84 or 3 and a half stars or whatever arbitrary decimal place it might be, it’s all collected and now displayed right next to the game itself.

Now don’t get me wrong, I see why Amazon are doing this, I see that it’s for the convenience of the public who need to justify spending their time and money on a product. Amazon aren’t coming out to try and harm the industry, not when they’re just about to partly get into it.

To begin with, there’s tons wrong with Metacritic.

For example, publications only get one shot on the site for each game. Once you put your score up there, that’s that. No second chances. Not even if your review is altered and has its score changed, or if the review itself is taken down.

Now, there’s understandable reasons for this. Some outlets might be pressured into giving the game a higher score by publishers, if they felt a reviewer’s initial score wasn’t to their liking, and while most have integrity, there are a select few who don’t. A higher Metacritic score means better PR for publishers and bonuses for the developer. Which, is yet another, major problem with Metacritic and publishers.

Firstly, even in the initial pitching of video game ideas, publishers will ask the developers what their Metacritic average is. Then in the development of a game, while maybe not directly responding to the call for a higher score, developers will find ways in which to identify core areas of their game and improve them, in order to gain a higher Metacritic score. So while there is no direct link between the two, its influence is there, and then, if the game receives a high score, it can be used advantageously in the pitching of an idea, going all the way back to publishers.

This is why you see shoddy online multiplayer added in to games late in development, it’s another area in which this arbitrary points can be scored. That’s why DLC is added, to “extend” the life and re-playability of the game, but not without a price of course.

Metacritic is hurting this industry and we have to stop caring about numbers and focus on the content. I could go on and on (and probably will at a later date) about Metacritic’s problems, but when you come down to the core, game reviewing is flawed.

Hell, reviewing is flawed. There is, of course, objectively things you can review; does the game work, does it control properly, are there any game breaking bugs? These and more are factual points that can be proved when the game is played by anyone. There is simply too much subjectivity after these points that a number can be created and then justified. Please, explain to me what the difference is between that 75 and 76. What quantifies that 1 point? Can, then, that same exact point be attributed to other games? No, of course not.

And there’s another point. We’re comparing games that cannot be compared legitimately.



Here’s a quick screengrab of the “highest rated games of all time”. The first is an action-adventure game, the next is a skateboarding game, then an open world, action-adventure, then a fighter, then a platformer and so on. Have all these games been reviewed with the same criteria, same regulations and rules? Of course not, you can’t apply the same set of standards to every single game, that’s just not fair and hurts the developers, consumer and reviewer, not to mention the game itself.

One of the most polarizing game series I know of is the Animal Crossing series. I bought the latest edition, New Leaf, day one. People either understand the game and love it, or understand the game and find it completely boring, which is fine! It’s personal, I understand the game, it’s relaxing and makes me feel mellow, how can that feeling be translated into a review and then used as a means to critique another game? It cannot, because reviews are subjective, and subjectivity is great, it allows us all to have differing opinions, to discuss and debate, what a boring world we would live in if everyone agreed with each other, which is why I find when big releases like GTA V get scores lower than 90 from a reviewer, I’ll read that one. Why didn’t it like up to expectations, why does this not conform with other people’s opinions? This discussion and debate is good, it allows for advancement, to exceed expectations the next time, a thought process that cannot be done by simply looking at a number that’s supposed to be representative of the entire “video game journalism” consensus. There’s a world of difference between an indie game made in a garage by 3 people and a “AAA” game with a budget that exceeds 9 figures made by a 1000 people. We absolutely cannot compare these two experiences with one, concluding number. Not ever.

Look what WIRED considers a 5:

5 — “Recommended with reservations.” Average. Your run-of-the-millgaming experience. Genre devotees would give this a 6 or maybe a 7 on a good day, but even they would have to acknowledge that it’s got a lot of flaws and design issues that keep it from standing out from the crowd. Or maybe it’s justbland and uninspired. A 5 is still fun, but there’s just so many better experiences out there.

And now GameSpot:

5 – Mediocre

And now IGN:

5.0-5.9 – MEDIOCRE
This is the kind of bland, unremarkable game we’ve mostly forgotten about a day after we finish playing. A mediocre game isn’t something you should spend your time or money on if you consider either to be precious, but they’ll pass the time if you have nothing better to do.

Example: Dust 514, Time & Eternity, Game & Wario

And now Polygon:

A score of five indicates a bland, underwhelming game that’s functional but little else. These games might still possess quirks or aspects that appeal to certain players.

And now GameInformer:

Average. The game’s features may work, but are nothing that even casual players haven’t seen before. A decent game from beginning to end.

So GameSpot say a 5 is “of only moderate quality; not very good”, GI says it’s “average” but also a “decent game” (contradiction?), Polygon tells us it’s underwhelming but “might still possess quirks or aspects that appeal to certain players” (can’t games with other scores do that?), whereas IGN calls it “bland, unremarkable”.

Mediocre, average, decent, underwhelming, bland, unremarkable.

Are you then telling me that Metacritic then collects these totally different definitions and then “rounds it up” into one, singular number?

Game reviewing is flawed. I don’t have the perfect solution on me right now. I, instead, prefer to just end the review with a concluding paragraph, summarising my thoughts into a neatly crafted summary. A simple “Yes, you should buy this game” or “No, you should avoid this game” would suffice near the end of the review, and if we got everyone to do this, people who read game reviews can start to see if they will enjoy the game or not. Not by reading one, single number, but by assessing multiple, differing views.

I suppose then, a lot of us are a fault, whether it’s readers who are lazy and just want the number, whether it’s publishers who make crucial business decisions based on subjective and arbitrary numbers, or developers who are changing the way games are made to conform to this almighty aggregated number. One of my favourite people in gaming, Jason Schreier, sums it up perfectly. Metacritic is a useful tool, but video game publishers have turned it into a weapon. And something’s gotta change.

Video game scores need to go, and video game reviews need to change.



Or we could end reviews with gifs like so:

 

TheAmazingLSB

PLEASE UNDERSTAND....
#2
I've never believed in giving scores or grades to video games.... Tastes vary to such a degree that I feel numbered scores to be essentially useless.... One person's trash is another person's treasure....

I've always enjoyed game recommedations though....

But just fuck grades and scores.... Giving a game a score is more about money and advertising these days than any Gods honest truth about a game.... Now a days that is all a review is really good for.... Being used as fodder for advertising the game being reviewed....

There is no legit reason scores are handed out as of today.... What started out as a way to rate the greatness and weakness of some of our favorite games has now become advertising jargon for the fronts of game cases and internet/magazine ads....

Whatever legitimacy they held before is long gone now, replaced by flamboyant ad slogans and the countless youtube personalities and game reviewers behind them trying to earn a buck....

My take is either recommend or don't.... That's how I've always tried to explain to others whether I believe a game is worth playing.... But the truth is that I feel that even the games I do not particularly like deserve to be played....

Maybe not enjoyed, but definitely played.... Because in the end the only way to really know if a game is for you or not is to fucking play it yourself....
 
Last edited:

mattavelle1

IT’S GOT A DEATH RAY!
Moderator
#3
Wow LSB that's what I wanted to write but much more basic. Only you could put it like that and I agree with this thread 100% thus far.

I couldn't tell you honestly the last time I thought "oh man such and such game got a whatever review score". Probably the last time I cared was back when magazines gave review scores.

I also totally agree with the recommend or don't recommend for game reviews LSB. You guys here for me on games recommendations hold tons more weight cause I know y'all care about actually buying and playing games with your hard earned money and time.

EDIT: @Daniel_Switzer @LightsaberBlues
 

nerdman

pig's gotta fly
#4
I give this thread an 8.9

Scores are here to stay. Most consumers like having recommendations instead of searching through every game. Summing the game up in a number is the most straight forward way possible.

While I think the logic governing the score paradigm is silly, and I would, like LSB said, rather see simply recommendations become the norm.

Or if people need a quick summary, can we do something smarter than a number? Maybe a paragraph. Or even a sentence.

It's comical yet sad that reviewers type out all those words and most viewers will only look at the number. It is always nice to see scoreless reviews.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#7
It's why I've started doing "Checkout Counter"'s at the end of my reviews for this site where I recommend that you "But it" or "Skip it".

If anyone wonders why I recommended buying a 6.5/10 or 7/10 game, they're gonna have to read the review. Wonder why I recommended skipping a 8.5/10 or 9/10 game? Gonna have to read the review.

Daniel, LSB, and pretty much everyone else in this thread is right. Scores are nigh meaningless these days with the amount of sites giving them out. So much so, that we have to compile them into review aggregate sites, but even those don't do games justice, because every website has it's own review scale. One man's 7/10 could be another man's 5/10.

In essence, if someone is going to have a score on their site, they're going to need to do something a little extra to make it truly unique. TNE already has low score/high score so that we can appeal to a wide range of tastes. We're also going to be exploring other things. But if you can't offer anything worthwhile, I say don't have a score.
 

TheAmazingLSB

PLEASE UNDERSTAND....
#8
Scores are here to stay. Most consumers like having recommendations instead of searching through every game. Summing the game up in a number is the most straight forward way possible.
That is probably my biggest gripe with reviews today.... The idea that one can literally sum up a game they play with a simple number and that that number intelligently represents a well thoughtout opinion about what it is attatched to is pure nonsense imo....

The fact that the people that use these reviews value the number attatched to the review more than the review itself is a great indication that our gaming culture, the society which we as gamers have created, is now built upon foundations made up of fake bricks composed of complete and utter bullshit....

Any gamer worth his salt can see right through this illusion.... A true gamer knows how to use all of this so called info correctly and how much weight it should or shouldn't carry in their mind's eye....

The days of the blinded gamer are still here, they are all around us.... But more and more, slowly but surely, the blindfolds are comming off and gamer's eyes are being opened to the truth.... The truth that we as gamers don't need this industry's opinion anymore....

And why don't we need this industry's opinion anymore you ask...?

It's because now we have places to gather and discuss games between ourselves.... Like TNE.... Now we can go to our friends on forums like this one and ask one another about the games we play....

In other words....

Hey, video game industry.... We don't need your opinions anymore.... Because now.... We have each other....

So go fuck yourself....
 
#10
I've said it before and daniel just highlighed it again, review aggregate sites today are flawed in so so many ways that given the time, I'd love to design one that easily outshines GR and MC.

Not only are scores weighted incorrectly, but these aggregate sites can be completely useless as a guide due to their severe lack of features. In the end, all the two aggregate sites show is a number, and if you don't actually go through an read all the reviews (why would you?), you'll never know why it got that number.

I don't think scores so much need to go, but we've got to find a way to make reviews less about the score. Drowning it out isn't as difficult as it may seem.
 

TheAmazingLSB

PLEASE UNDERSTAND....
#11
The only way to make reviews less about the scores is to remove them from the equation.... As long as the scores exist their primary function will be to overshadow the review with which they are attached to....

I mean it's like winning and losing in the minds of gamers.... The scores are like medals or trophies.... It's like, getting a good or bad score means your favorite game won or lost something....

And that's how these games will be remembered unfortuantely.... It's not going to be about how the game was played, but about who won and who lost....

And that is really more what reviews are about these days other than being fodder for ads and jewel cases....

It's about the people who have already bought and played these games hip hip hooraying them when they get great scores and defending them to the death when they don't....

It's more about people being reassured that the game they enjoyed is seen as great through the media's eyes as well as their own....

And in that regard they feel even more justified for enjoying it....

Reviews are more about reassuring gamers that the games they buy are truly seen as great by more than just themselves.... That is what driving review scores these day....

Gamers act like their favorite game getting a great score is like pinning a medal on their chest in honor of their great skills when it comes to taste in games....

Reviews = vindication for those gamers that just want reassurence that what they are playing is indeed great....

In other words people don't read reviews to see if a game is indeed worth playing.... They read it after they have already played it to help justify their decision to purchase it....

Reviews are like a pat on the back for most gamers today.... Like hey, good job on buying that great game.... *pats himself on the back*
 
Last edited:

Superfakerbros

ECE 2018
Moderator
#12
However, I will say this though. There are a couple of people out there that actually know how to properly use the 1-10 review scale. Most don't but there are a few that do, such as ProJared. Of course, I prefer it when reviewers don't use it, such as with Somecallmejohnny but, for the few that do and use it right, I have to give them props
 
#13
Not gonna lie though, scores are pretty helpful as a guide, esp. if you know how each site dishes out their scores (and if you don't you can look at their review scale).

From what I can see, scores are just saturated these days, making them less of a useful guide than they used to be. I also don't see anything wrong with viewing scores as a form of entertainment. At the end of the day, scores don't actually dictate how well a game sells. How many games out there sold well because they were praised or sold poorly because they were scorned?

Wii Sports - 81.91 million copies sold - 76.28%
Mario Kart Wii - 34.41 million copies sold - regarded as the worst in the franchise
Kinect Adventures! - 20.98 million - 65.39%
etc etc

If anything, critics get it right more often then not.

What I'd really like to see is what Daniel was talking about with aggregates like MC and GR. What would the rankings list look like if they were rated to scale? Aggregates in my opinion are the only things that need fixing, not so much individual sites. With sites like Amazon now using aggregate scores to sell games, scores need to be aggregated to accuracy now more than ever. Because unlike individual site scores, aggregates scores are worth more – and they should be! Just not when they aren't collecting scores correctly.
 
Last edited:
#16
I've never believed in giving scores or grades to video games.... Tastes very to such a degree that I feel numbered scores to be essentially useless.... One person's trash is another person's treasure....

I've always enjoyed game recommedations though....

But just fuck grades and scores.... Giving a game a score is more about money and advertising these days than any Gods honest truth about a game.... Now a days that is all a review is really good for.... Being used as fodder for advertising the game being reviewed....

There is no legit reason scores are handed out as of today.... What started out as a way to rate the greatness and weakness of some of our favorite games has now become advertising jargon for the fronts of game cases and internet/magazine ads....

Whatever legitimacy they held before is long gone now, replaced by flamboyant ad slogans and the countless youtube personalities and game reviewers behind them trying to earn a buck....

My take is either recommend or don't.... That's how I've always tried to explain to others whether I believe a game is worth playing.... But the truth is that I feel that even the games I do not particularly like deserve to be played....

Maybe not enjoyed, but definitely played.... Because in the end the only way to really know if a game is for you or not is to fucking play it yourself....
Precisely, I find Kotaku's Yes/No system the best. I don't need a full in depth explanation as to why the graphics aren't as good as they can be and then a commentary on the financial situation of the company who made the game, which then somehow changes the score of the game. Fuck off with that shit. Just tell me, if I'm a fan of that genre, will I more than likely enjoy this game? If I buy it, and I do, great! If I don't, I'll return it, simple as.
 
#17
However, I will say this though. There are a couple of people out there that actually know how to properly use the 1-10 review scale. Most don't but there are a few that do, such as ProJared. Of course, I prefer it when reviewers don't use it, such as with Somecallmejohnny but, for the few that do and use it right, I have to give them props
I remember Somecallmejohnny used to do review scores but then he said at one point that he'd rather let the review speak for itself. So in the end he would basically either recommend the game or not. This is something I agree with.
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
#18
Damn, I didn't realize such awesome convos were going on in the Blogs forums.
And that's how these games will be remembered unfortuantely.... It's not going to be about how the game was played, but about who won and who lost....
I want to comment on this. Last October I went to Austin City Limits music festival. That festival happened for two weekends, I went to the second. In between those two weekends, my and my brother would listen to iHeart radio, cause they were playing music from the festival so it was a good way for us to listen to stuff we might get to see during the weekend. Anyway, at some point I heard some of the radio hosts talking about the first weekend of ACL, and they were arguing back and forth about who was the best band, who really shined through, basically, as my brother and I summed it up, "who won ACL". That was funny to us it sounded like the shit you see on gaming publications right after E3. But it really got us thinking, like man, that's some stupid shit there. How can we recognize how stupid it is when applied to music, but we had a harder time realizing that with videogames? We had chosen not to pay attention to the "who won E3" shenanigans for a long time, but we never really thought about how damn stupid it was.

So yeah, when you get down to it, games are pieces of entertainment and art the same way that music is. Everybody goes to see a different band for different reasons, because they like different things. It's stupid to talk about some band "winning" a music festival, because nobody has the same criteria, and everybody is having a great freaking time anyway. With videogames, the same should be obvious. We all like different kinds of games for different reasons. We come together to talk about what we like and what we wish such and such games would have in the future, and about why we couldn't enjoy one game but absolutely loved another, and so on. But the moment we start talking about which game is the best, which deserves the highest score, and which "wins" E3, nothing but shit comes out of our mouths.

------

Anyway, on review scores:
Review scores are invalid for the simple reason that we never know what the end points of the scale are. Can we really know what a 100/100 is? Even if we did, by next year our standards will have changed and last year's 100/100 game might look more like a 90/100 (or 110/100?). Even to give a 50/100 as an "average" score, assumes that the games we have played (and we haven't played all of them) accurately reflect the overall range of quality that all games have. So, reviewers can do whatever they want, give score or not, but these scores will only be helpful if the reviewer understands that he is scoring games based entirely on his subjective experience, and that his scores are only valid within the limits of his own experience with games.

Great OP and great posts from LSB, by the way.

EDIT: And just to leave this here, I think Metacritic is poison and it should go away first thing in the morning.
 
#19
Agreed Jueg. And that to me marks the problem with aggregates today. It may not be a major issue, because it's not like opinions vary that much, but simply tallying up the scores and arriving at an average screams lazy to me. Games are way too much to be complied into a single number. If anyone doesn't understand this, look no further than at the highest rated games. Super Mario Galaxy and and Uncharted 2 are two of the highest rated games for two very different reasons that a mere number cannot convey.

There sites are only good for cheerleading purposes. At most, they let you know that some amount of people liked that game for some reason or that nobody liked it for some reason. Anyone using them for statistical purposes to define the best games of all time is not very wise.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
#20
I like reviews, but reviews are pieces of opinion.

It's like a politics magazines or papers. The best one will be the one that you agree with or that you trust. There's no unbiased magazine or newspaper. It doesn't exist, so there's no unbiased reviewer.

So there are some sites and magazines that I trust or that I usually agree with, so their reviews help me. There are many games that I'd never buy, but I only have tried because of a review.

About scores, the first thing that I disagree is the 0 to 100 or 0.0 to 10.0 rating. When you've got a rating like this it means that you've got a hundred levels. How can a person put a game, or a film or anything, in one level of 100 levels? It's impossible. When it's like 0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5... it gets better, but I still think that 10 or 20 levels is too much.

For me the best way of scoring is the 5 stars system. I rate all the films I watch using this system. A zero star is a film that I don't consider a film, a trash. 1-star film is a very poor and bad film, confused, poor directed, bad script, etc. A 5-star film is an extraordinary film. That film that you can watch a hundred times. Perfect direction, production, text, acting, photography, music, etc. However it's still a bit subjective.

In sum, I believe in scores, but I prefer the 5-star rating and I think that it's subjective and it requires trust. Because I think that you can compare almost everything. What do "better" and "worse" mean? They mean nothing. What mean is "better than" and "worse than". So when I say that a game is 5-stars, I'm saying that, for me, it's better than all 4-stars games. It's perfectly possible for me.

The "like" or "dislike" or the "buy it" or "skip it" for me is not enough for games and films, for example. The binary system don't let you make a good comparison.
 

Koenig

The Architect
#21
I honestly do not think that scores are the problem, but rather how they have been used. As Jacesonnall stated; games like Super Mario Galaxy and Uncharted 2 are two of the highest rated games in recent years, however they are rated good for different reasons. Averaging out the individual scored aspects that people consider good about the game loses much of the intent behind the score itself.

On example I like to use is Zombi U. It is a terribly Action/FPS game yet that is how most people reviewed it as, however it is a fantastic Survival Horror game and those who reviewed it as such gave it higher scores. There is nothing wrong with using a scoring system, but it needs to be in the right context or there is no point. Imagine rating a Super Mario Bros game based solely on its story, or a visual novel only on its gameplay. They would fail spectacularly; however that is because of a lack of context on the reviewers part and not the games or scoring system itself.
 
#22
My problem isn't with reviews or scores or whatever, it's when these so called "critics" only play a given title for about an hour and then feel that's enough to do a writeup on it.

The most recent example I can think of with this happening was with Killer Is Dead, where people were slamming Jiggalo Mode but it was quite clear that they had only played the first one.

I bet most of the people writing reviews don't even make it to the half way point of the game
 

TheAmazingLSB

PLEASE UNDERSTAND....
#23
My problem isn't with reviews or scores or whatever, it's when these so called "critics" only play a given title for about an hour and then feel that's enough to do a writeup on it.

The most recent example I can think of with this happening was with Killer Is Dead, where people were slamming Jiggalo Mode but it was quite clear that they had only played the first one.

I bet most of the people writing reviews don't even make it to the half way point of the game
Hell yeah....

 

riotmaker

large signature lol
#24
It does get tricky with annual releases, i.e. Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, etc

The scores should be based off the experience the individual game offers, but if it's not much different than the sequel from 12 months ago, it gets messy. How can one grade a game without taking into account of the previous installments, and how is it far to that game to have it's score lowered due to how it's too similar to the one before it?

But at the same time, how is it fair to consumers if they see the sequel has a great score, even if it's minimally changed from it's predecessor?

Also, I hate how publishers push for great scores instead of great games. That's how the integrity of reviews decreases. (Gamespot, Kane & Lynch) "Journalists" get incentives from publishers, scores go up. And look at Fallout: New Vegas. Obsidian needed to get an 85% on metacritic in order to get a bonus, and they got an 84%.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
#25
I would much rather video game sites just simplify the grading/rating systems in video games because a score is just that: a score. For example, if I caught the highlights to a specific Football game and the score was 35-28, the score itself doesn't mean much, but rather the content of what actually occured. All you know with the score is who won and who lost. But what actually happened during the game? The score itself might've not been that impressive, but the content of the game probably was so exciting it was keeping you on the edge of your seat simply because you had no clue as to what would happen next.

A lot of this can also stem from hype. We tend to over-excite ourselves in situations that might eventually turn out to be a bit of a letdown. In many playoff or championship games, some of them are rather quite boring and you simply want them to be over with. But with other games where the hype isn't quite as high, you start to have this higher appreciation for what is going on. But we don't have to apply these principles in just sports games or video games. We can use those same ideas for watching a movie or a TV show even, or more specifically, any form of entertainment.

Just as a personal example. I had heard of the movie The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, and thought it could be interesting, but I had no high hopes for it. I was with some friends of mine that day, and we narrowed our movie choices to Grudge Match, and Walter Mitty. We opted for Walter Mitty since my friend's girlfriend wanted to check it out. I came out of that movie and thought it was probably one of the top movies I saw in a long time. It was just that good in my opinion. And pay close attention I did not give the movie a score or anything. I simply said it was a much better film that I expected it to be, and as a result become one of my favorite movies of 2013 (even though I saw it this year, but it came out last year).

This is where I want video game reviews to become. Not so much relying on the scores themselves, but hearing the personal opinion of an individual explaining their reasoning. Now, there is definitely a fine line with this because you do not want to spoil anything, so conveying that the video game is good or bad without going into specifics sometimes can be tricky. But then again, with a movie like Walter Mitty, I never read any reviews for it, but instead watched a couple trailers for it. It gave me an idea for what the movie had, but still left a lot of details out. Perhaps, we should give our take on a game, and then leave the reader with a good trailer that sums up the game for you, without giving the game an actual score.

For most games, you don't even need a score in the first place because it over generalizes the game without actually explaining anything. Not to mention not everyone looks at scoring the same way either. Some consider any game less than a 8 or a 9 is bad, and as such, he/she will not consider buying it. But then there are people such as myself, who will check out games even if they're rated in the 6 or 7 range simply because I'm interested in what the game contains. Like I said, the scores themselves don't tell you the whole story, so why put so much effort into something that isn't exactly black and white?

One last thing I'll say though is some of this review stuff can be meaningless, especially if there was a game you had no idea about, or what it was, and then decide to just give it a try and you found out it was much better than you thought it would be. And to top that all off, you did not even read any reviews either. Sometimes, a trailer is enough for me to decide whether or not a game peaks my interest, and then sometimes I want to read more and hear some details. And then in other cases, we know the developer of the game, and who's heading development, and that is enough to want us to buy or not.
 
Top