Comments on: Should reviewers explicitly admit their total time with the game? http://magweasel.com/2009/09/28/reviewers-and-total-game-time/ Magweasel.com Tue, 08 May 2012 16:36:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: mikef http://magweasel.com/2009/09/28/reviewers-and-total-game-time/comment-page-1/#comment-668 mikef Thu, 01 Oct 2009 03:33:34 +0000 http://magweasel.com/?p=983#comment-668 A little more information doesn't hurt, I suppose. Readers will do with it what they want. A little more information doesn’t hurt, I suppose. Readers will do with it what they want.

]]> By: Darío http://magweasel.com/2009/09/28/reviewers-and-total-game-time/comment-page-1/#comment-665 Darío Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:29:37 +0000 http://magweasel.com/?p=983#comment-665 hours played it's pretty relative and mostly irrelevant number, and you could never be sure it's true. i've read some reviews that i was sure were written by someone who didn't even get past the first level, but i don't think the writer would admit that's the case. hours played it’s pretty relative and mostly irrelevant number, and you could never be sure it’s true. i’ve read some reviews that i was sure were written by someone who didn’t even get past the first level, but i don’t think the writer would admit that’s the case.

]]> By: Esteban http://magweasel.com/2009/09/28/reviewers-and-total-game-time/comment-page-1/#comment-661 Esteban Wed, 30 Sep 2009 02:05:15 +0000 http://magweasel.com/?p=983#comment-661 I think that "hours played" is a useless metric in general (see points made by ECM above). A more useful metric might be "% of game completed", but this isn't always measurable and risks being inflated as well. Honestly, the only way for a reviewer to gain credibility is for him/her to write a solid review. I certainly think that "total hours played" has novelty value, and it would be fun to compare a reviewer's stats over time (against him/herself), but that's about it. I think that “hours played” is a useless metric in general (see points made by ECM above).

A more useful metric might be “% of game completed”, but this isn’t always measurable and risks being inflated as well.

Honestly, the only way for a reviewer to gain credibility is for him/her to write a solid review.

I certainly think that “total hours played” has novelty value, and it would be fun to compare a reviewer’s stats over time (against him/herself), but that’s about it.

]]> By: ECM http://magweasel.com/2009/09/28/reviewers-and-total-game-time/comment-page-1/#comment-655 ECM Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:29:32 +0000 http://magweasel.com/?p=983#comment-655 It would be pointless: the people for whom this is an issue, as you already noted, still wouldn't believe it and would continue to heap scorn. (And, in all honesty, a lot of it is justified.) For most everyone else, they really only care about the numerical score and the text is just filler. (Hell, i think it's safe to say that we've all read tons and tons of reviews where the numerical score doesn't have any rational bearing to the review text, so I'm guessing a lot of 'have our cake and eat it too' (insofar as dumping on the game in the body of the review but rescuing it with an average score for whatever reason), pro, reviewers don't care, either.) It would be pointless: the people for whom this is an issue, as you already noted, still wouldn’t believe it and would continue to heap scorn. (And, in all honesty, a lot of it is justified.)

For most everyone else, they really only care about the numerical score and the text is just filler. (Hell, i think it’s safe to say that we’ve all read tons and tons of reviews where the numerical score doesn’t have any rational bearing to the review text, so I’m guessing a lot of ‘have our cake and eat it too’ (insofar as dumping on the game in the body of the review but rescuing it with an average score for whatever reason), pro, reviewers don’t care, either.)

]]>