Sure, these kinds of reviews have been around forever, but I think this is an important change because Steam has a lot of clout and if they think the collective opinion of its user base should be prioritized over formal reviews from the gaming press, a lot of other folks will soon start to feel that way assuming they don't already. I've certainly found myself caring more about user reviews than what this or that big name game site thinks about game XYZ in recent years.
This is something that seems to be becoming increasingly prevalent in the back and forth between the public and the gaming press. The two have been at loggerheads for the better part of forever over reviews, some of it justified, other times not so much. Recently, though, it seems like a lot of folks are just walking away from the formal review, or at least a lot of the more hardcore elements that tend to be more vocal about games, and eager to see what they're like ASAP.
It's a shift we've been seeing for a few years now, and not just to do with user reviews. There's also the rise of video content, and the personalities behind it. People are becoming increasingly interested in what these content creators think of certain games, and as such video has pushed a lot of traditional games media to the sidelines. Sure, cults of personality have been a thing for decades, with certain groups at certain publications becoming taste makers as they rise in fame and their following grows. Whether it was writing for a music magazine and breaking bands, or something like the glory days of Ziff Davis where they had a huge staff of personalities writing for them, there have always been groups that come into the limelight and are able to influence people's opinions on a medium. Now it's the YouTubers' turn to have a kick at the can.
An advantage of the shift towards focusing more on what the community at large has to say about a given game is that it helps someone find out if lesser known games may be worth a look see. It's all well and good to review the latest Assassin's Creed or Dragon's Age, but a lot of stuff slips through the cracks because of this narrow focus. There were dozens upon dozens of games listed on Steam that I had no idea whether or not they'd been well received since there were no official outlets talking about them. Community reviews at least gave me a better idea as to the quality of those games.
I've also been finding myself questioning the value of reviews in recent years. Just who reads them and genuinely looks to the articles to help guide a purchasing decision. Color me cynical, but sometimes I wonder if folks reading the articles are there more for confirmation bias than anything else. It's more a sea of people looking at the review and thinking (screaming?), "Yeah! This guy gets it!" or "How can this person be so far off the mark?" The deluge of comments after many reviews certainly adds weight to the argument. Are there really all that many people going to the review to find out if a game is good? Most of the more casual gamers that I know usually ask friends in the know about games worth looking into, and don't really read the review sites. If it's a big name series like GTA, CoD, or whatever, they'll pick up the game sight unseen simply because of the series reputation, or because they liked the previous games so figure that they might as well get the new one too.
It's not as if user reviews are a new thing. Retailer websites have had them for years, but they have been much more of a necessary source of opinion since most goods are not subjected to a deluge of "official" reviews. Maybe the product will get looked at in something like Consumer Report, but how many people look to reviews there compared to games. If anything, the game industry is an environment where reviews have been enshrined and put on a pedestal. Since the late '80s, I remember people talking about what this or that magazine was saying about a game, and it moved on to the web decades later. Even compared to music and film, I'd argue that people who follow games are far more rabid about how reviews go.
Again, I am very suspicious that a large part of this is a subconscious thirst for confirmation bias, so I'm not convinced that the attention that game reviews have traditionally received is entirely noble. Nonetheless, they have historically gotten a lot of attention. However, with a company like Valve, one with tremendous influence, and very capable of shaping consumers opinions and expectations, is prioritizing community reviews over traditional press, that sends a strong message.
With the rise of video content, many web sites have been struggling to justify their relevance in recent years. There've been plenty of hearty editorials and forum posts from people attached to these publications arguing why their outlet still matters, but it is hard to say whether they're winning the battle for the hearts and minds of game enthusiasts.
We're definitely seeing a shift away from traditional media in terms of the sorts of coverage folks are looking for, and now we're starting to see it become institutionalized as companies like Valve are taking steps to move away from it. Will the traditional game review go away? Of course not, but it may well matter less going forward. People are looking to new ways of deciding whether a game is good or not. This change on Steam is just one more step in that direction.
