How much are game reviews affected by pre-release hype/expectations?

[Kyle Orland]

Hey game journalist people

I'm once again collecting comments/opinions for an upcoming Press Pass column on Crispy Gamer, and I was hoping you guys would be willing to help. As it says above, I'm interested in finding out how much you thing the hype/expectations/pre-release coverage of a game affect the reception for that game.

Specifically:

* Do you think a game that's heavily promoted/hyped would get generally better or worse reviews than if that same game came out of nowhere?
* Does the promotion/hype behind a game affect your own reviews? (be honest!)
* Looking at some specific examples: Do you think the reception of games like Spore and Mass Effect was affected (either positively or negatively) by the years-long pre-release coverage they received?
* How about sleeper hits like Katamari Damacy or the original Guitar Hero -- did their general lack of pre-release coverage affect their reception?
* Do you try to limit your personal exposure to information about games you're reviewing, so you can go in to the experience fresh? Perhaps you do the opposite -- trying to get all the information possible to inform the review? Maybe something in between?
* Can it be counter-productive for a publisher to hype up a game that end unable to perform in the end? Or does the hype increase the general reception of even awful games?

Of course, any answers can be used for publication (if you want to be anonymous, just let me know) Make your response as long or as short as you want (of course longer is better for me). Deadline for responses to be used is Weds., Oct. 22, but answer now so you don't forget! Post your response here or get in touch directly (http://kyleorland.com/blog/contact/)

Thanks in advance!

[Brendon Lindsey]

It seemed lonely in here Kyle, so I figured I'd bite since I'm bored and waiting for a video to finish encoding.



* Do you think a game that's heavily promoted/hyped would get generally better or worse reviews than if that same game came out of nowhere?

For the most part I'd have to say a game that's heavily hyped/promoted will get a lower score than if it was an unknown. If it's talked about and promoted up the wazzoo for months (or years) before launch, people already expect it to be great. When it comes out of nowhere, it honestly shocks people so the score seems to be higher.


* Does the promotion/hype behind a game affect your own reviews? (be honest!)

I'd like to think it doesn't, but I'm sure on some subconscious level it does. Usually I find the thing which tends to affect my reviews in some cases (if I don't catch it when I'm writing it) is the pedigree of the developer. Great game from a great developer? Cool. Again. Decent game from a great developer? Usually I'd tend to point out the flaws more than if it was a decent game from an unknown developer.

It's that way with most entertainment or art, though. Once a name is synonymous with being great, anything less tends to stick out like Mike Myers in a soul quartet.


* Looking at some specific examples: Do you think the reception of games like Spore and Mass Effect was affected (either positively or negatively) by the years-long pre-release coverage they received?

Mass Effect, not so much. Spore? Definitely. Just go through all the reviews and look at how often the reviewer mentions what they said about the game, or how long it's been in development/hyped and how it failed to deliver based on THAT. "Sure, it's a fun game, but it's not as great as it could have been" is what a lot of people tend to say in one form or another. But going back to my previous point, Spore is connected to a big name so the hype and expectations would have been there even if EA didn't try to remind us every 72 hours that Spore was coming out this year.


* How about sleeper hits like Katamari Damacy or the original Guitar Hero -- did their general lack of pre-release coverage affect their reception?

I'd like to think so, hence the name sleeper hit. No one expected them to be that successful. Funny story: when the first Guitar Hero came out and I got a copy to review, my roommates at the time laughed their asses off that I was going to play with a tiny plastic guitar, because it was obviously a kids game. Two hours later, we canceled going out that night and ended up playing Guitar Hero for the next five hours or so instead.

It was that way with a lot of reviewers, I'm sure. No one knew what they were getting, and the actual product blew their mind. Hell, it took a couple of weeks for the general gaming public to catch on about Guitar Hero. Now, whenever a Guitar Hero game comes out (especially themed packs) they tend to do less because they have that pre-hype of association.


* Do you try to limit your personal exposure to information about games you're reviewing, so you can go in to the experience fresh? Perhaps you do the opposite -- trying to get all the information possible to inform the review? Maybe something in between?

I honestly don't go either way. If I know a lot about a game, it's because I've been looking forward to it myself, and for those I usually avoid reviewing it (unless no one else can due to debug issues or something) because I want to play it as a gamer, not a critic. The only times I've ever actually researched and gathered tons of information on games I review is when it involves some specific license or tie-in I'm not really that familiar with off the top of my head.


* Can it be counter-productive for a publisher to hype up a game that end unable to perform in the end? Or does the hype increase the general reception of even awful games?

If a publisher is hyping up a game and it fails to succeed in terms of delivering upon that hype, the game is basically going to run a 40 yard dash and burst out of the gate, then come to a stop almost immediately after. On the other hand, if a game isn't hyped that much and then surpasses any and all expectations, it will usually run a marathon and start off really slow, then finish with a burst.

Then again, that doesn't always happen. Some games are hyped up a ton, bomb in terms of gameplay/deliverance, and still end up becoming best-sellers; others are never advertised, are on every reviewer's Best Of lists, and never move more than 100k copies. Such is the market.

[Jonathan Gronli]

* Do you think a game that's heavily promoted/hyped would get generally better or worse reviews than if that same game came out of nowhere?

It all depends. If the reviewer takes the publicity and hype of a game with a grain of salt, it doesn't really affect pre-review perspective. You have to go in pretty much blind with just the expectation that the game will be playable.

* Does the promotion/hype behind a game affect your own reviews? (be honest!)

No. Regardless of type of game or amount of hype before the release I try to go into reviews in general blind.

* Looking at some specific examples: Do you think the reception of games like Spore and Mass Effect was affected (either positively or negatively) by the years-long pre-release coverage they received?

Depends on how you look at it. Mass Effect got a lot of pre-release coverage but it was a good game to begin with. What some gamers do is either get the game to let people know whether or not it lived up to the hype. Others wait for the reviews before jumping on the bandwagon.

* How about sleeper hits like Katamari Damacy or the original Guitar Hero -- did their general lack of pre-release coverage affect their reception?

Not really. People go into games like the two you listed because they're fun games and they are more fun with friends.

* Do you try to limit your personal exposure to information about games you're reviewing, so you can go in to the experience fresh? Perhaps you do the opposite -- trying to get all the information possible to inform the review? Maybe something in between?

No. I don't try to limit exposure because that would mean I would have to pretty much ignore anyone anticipating the game, ads online, in text and on tv. I suffer from occasional habitual amnesia.

* Can it be counter-productive for a publisher to hype up a game that end unable to perform in the end? Or does the hype increase the general reception of even awful games?

A lot of games aren't able to perform up to the hype. However that doesn't mean that it is going to be a bad game. Some good games don't really live up to the hype and a lot of amazing games don't even get hyped.