The Diminishing Value of User Reviews in Video Games and Entertainment

Adding to the confusion is the phenomenon of users leaving reviews for games they haven't even played. In some cases, thousands of negative reviews appear before a game has even been released, making it impossible for these opinions to come from actual experience.

We saw this happen last year with Starfield, potentially only because Bethesda Game Studios made it exclusive to Xbox Series S/X, a decision that one of the studio's executives had already previously apologized for.

So, how can discerning gamers cut through the chaos and find meaningful information? A particularly interesting strategy is to focus on the middle ground of reviews. By ignoring the extremes of five-star praise and one-star condemnation, and instead concentrating on three and four-star reviews, players can often find a more balanced and nuanced opinion. These moderate ratings tend to come from users who have actually spent time playing the game and are more likely to offer thoughtful critiques of both its strengths and weaknesses.

Another indicator of a game's quality, albeit also imperfect, is the players who have invested significant time in the title. While it may seem counterintuitive, even the negative reviews from users with hundreds of hours of playtime can suggest that a game has merit, at least for a niche audience. These players have clearly found it to be compelling enough to keep them engaged, even if they ultimately decide not to recommend the game to others.

What's interesting about this is the concept of certain games as time-fillers rather than purely enjoyable experience. It's indeed possible to play a game for countless hours despite not finding it conventionally "fun", instead serving as familiar, low-demand activities to pass the time.

What this means is a game's ability to command time and attention don't always correlate with its overall quality or recommendation-worthiness.

We also can't ignore the influence of corporate interests and marketing strategies. It is no secret that the general gaming public has grown skeptical of professionals as they are now seen as peddlers of thinly veiled advertisements. A good example of this is the so-called "Xbox tax", a phenomenon coined by the internet to describe instances when multiple publications jump on a bad Xbox release but seem to spare PlayStation from the same rod. This kind of bias recently came into light following the release of Concord, which failed to make an impression at launch and has since been used as the poster child for the trappings of the live-service genre.

In light of these challenges, many have either created a carefully curated list of trusted reviewers whose tastes and opinions they trust or they simply dive in head first to experience the games first hand, taking advantage of refund policies on platforms like Steam to test titles with minimal financial risk.

Regardless of where you stand on this issue, it's clear that there's no right or wrong answer here, but you can't deny that there's more mistrust on user reviews these days than ever before.

But, then again, the pull of the ever-powerful FOMO is still stronger than logically thinking, which would explain why video game companies continue to take advantage of hype and marketing to boost sales.

Until that changes (and it probably never will), the problem with user reviews isn't going anyway anytime soon.