Everyone’s a critic: How reviews shape the $180 billion gaming industry, but as the product evolves the focus need to as well

This is the first in a series of articles looking at how professional game reviews shape the industry.

As a flurry of February releases hits gaming devices, a new report is set to perhaps rekindle an age-old gaming industry debate.

Published this month in the Journal of Business Research, new research has drawn a line between critical reviews and game sales. To significantly summarise: it found that, in general, there is a correlation between the pair. And conversely, there’s less of a link between general player reviews and commercial returns. That’s unlike a lot of other industries where user reviews are as influential — and are perhaps more trusted — than pieces from professional critics.

Pulling the research into the real world, there are arguments for and against this finding. Pokemon Scarlett and Violet were critically panned when they released, riddled with glitches and lagging beyond belief. Yet they went on to be among the best-selling games in the franchise’s history.

There’s a long list of games that have, however, fallen in line with this finding. Star Wars: Outlaws — another game based off popular intellectual property — saw middling reviews and performed weakly as a result.

But it’s not all one-sided; there’s an unspoken balance of power with reviews. Early access to a game for day-one reviews — and more recently developing early strategy guides — is coveted by gaming publishers. They are well known to generate both high traffic and engagement from readers.

As such, to say that critical reviews in the video game industry are a prickly topic would be an understatement.

For years, debate has raged around whether five or so years of work from a game maker should be nearly distilled into a score out of 10. Meanwhile, while the way in which games now release has changed significantly over the past three decades, the process in which they are graded and reviewed has remained largely intact.

All of this begs the question: Is it time for a rethink of critical gaming reviews? And if so, what would they look like?

This is the first article in a series looking at the impact of critical reviewing games on the ecosystem. Over the course of 2025, I’m aiming to talk to journalists, game developers and streamers about the impact of game reviews on their roles, and how they feel about the reviewing process. Tell, where possible, all sides of the story. But to start this off, it’s first worth understanding how the process actually works.

How do critical reviews actually work?

While there’s no hard and fast rule as to how games are released and reviewed—each is a case-by-case basis usually decided by the publisher and developer, and managed by their PR team. Here’s what’s considered standard practice, fact-checked by several sources within the industry:

• Game codes that allow an early download of a title are provided to a curated list of newsrooms, influential reviewers and streamers ahead of launch.
• In accepting the codes, reviewers agree that they won’t release anything till an agreed date — typically close to the release. This in the industry is known as an embargo.
• This could be anywhere from several weeks to a few days to play the game to completion ahead of launch.
• Reviewers play a pre-launch version of the game, ahead of its “Day 1 patch” which may iron out some bugs and kinks. It’s now accompanied with a fact sheet that explains the game and any potential fixes on the horizon. Reviewers are free to ask questions and clarify what will and won’t be in the game Day 1 to help hone their review.
• Some pre-release review versions may exclude online modes, and this is generally mentioned in the review if applicable.
• Everyone’s reviews are generally released at the same time. Some publications may receive an earlier embargo. This also generally includes both written reviews and video reviews. Streamers can also discuss their impressions of the game.
• As long as there are four or more reviews — from approved sites — Metacritic collates scores out of 10 (or 100) of the sites that produce a score and are registered on its platform, and produces an overall review score of a game.

What’s wrong with this process?

For the most part, this process has endured as it is the fairest means of giving all parties what they want. However, as games have evolved, some cracks have started to emerge:

• Games change over time. This is perhaps the biggest challenge for the process. Reviews provide a snapshot of a game at launch, but games now evolve with patches and updates, years after release. The only other review point is when additional content (DLC) is released, but general updates don’t trigger a re-examination. Providing a late review — weeks after launch — also penalises publishers in terms of traffic.
• Scores themselves can be arbitrary and don’t capture nuance. What is the difference between a 7 and an 8? Some sites have already addressed this. Back in 2018, video game website Polygon made the radical move of abolishing review scores. They instead replaced it with a “recommends” badge that allowed readers to quickly identify whether the game was a must-play.
• The pace of reviewing. While some publishers provide ample time to review, others create a rushed window forcing reviewers to speed through the game quicker than the average player. Is this fair? Also should reviewers — in an authoritative position — pass judgement on a game before they’ve finished playing it?
• Platforms can influence the review process. Metacritic favours critical reviews and scores, encouraging more outlets to provide a score over a more nuanced analysis. Steam — a games marketplace — places more emphasis on user reviews and general sentiment towards a game.

As you can likely tell, this is a complicated topic, involving a lot of closed-door discussions between those in the industry and those who cover it. Fair warning: There likely won’t be a solution from this series. There, in all honesty, likely isn’t one.

But at a minimum, it will shed light on what is a very influential but somewhat less talked about aspect of the gaming industry.

What’s your take on the critical review process? And what else should I explore with this series? Let me know here. I’ll be releasing future articles on this over the course of 2025 as I delve further into the subject.

• Harrison Polites writes the Infinite Lives newsletter. Follow him here.