Poll: Can a review be valid if the reviewer did not finish the game in question?

[pulse2]

Just like the poll asks.

Now since yahtzee is such a celebrity here, I feel the need to call him out on this. After yet another review where he openly admits to not having finished the game in question, I for one think he's becoming more and more full of shit. Don't get me wrong, I don't sympathize with the games over the reviewer and I definitely am not going to go blow a bunch of money on some game I don't care about to prove him wrong. But should people in such a position be obligated to at the very least finish the game before calling it one of Satan's balls.

btw, if you were talking about MindJack this time around in particular, Yahtzee wouldn't be the first reviewer I've heard to abandon the game halfway through, I've seen usually positive and completionist reviewers give up on that game, even going so far as to recommend to anyone considering getting it that it is only fun for the first 10 minutes, until the gimmick wears thin and you realise the flaws with it, gimmicks that were supposed to help improve gameplay and make it fun and unique ended up being ways to get you killed easier and PLENTY of times.

Like I said, you shouldn't have to endure crap 100% to know that said crap was in fact crap, lol

 

[bushwhacker2k]

I think his biggest argument against this statement would be "If you have to spend a certain amount of time in a game before it gets good, that isn't exactly a point in its favor."

Meaning that if he doesn't enjoy a game from the get-go, he very likely won't play it to the end.

I don't always agree with him, but I think his opinion on most games like that is quite legitimate. That's my opinion anyways

---

I voted 'girl scout cookies!' because I'm sick of people getting all bent out of shape over shit Yahtzee says.

Lol, I'm sure there are many people that do so, but on the other hand he does say a lot of interesting totally legitimate things that SHOULD be given thought. I wouldn't want someone's opinion to be completely invalidated because some people are offended easily.

 

[GuitArchon]

While it's not entirely fair to judge a game that you haven't finished, I don't think that it's necessarily unfair either. Obviously, there's the argument that the game's beginning/1st part is supposed to be the hook that draws you in; the indicator of things to come. If you don't like the 1st hour of gameplay, chances are you're setting yourself up for disappointment if you press onward.

However, there are a few instances where games start off on the wrong foot, but later redeem themselves someway or another. I think the best example of this would have to be Kingdom Hearts 2.

I want honesty here: How many people here actually ENJOYED playing the Twilight Town introduction with Roxas relative to the rest of the game?
Everyone I've talked to about this says the same thing: The game gets good about 2 hours in. Having played it myself, I agree. So, now we've seen that a video game can have a weak start, but still have enough heart (no pun intended!) to keep the player interested until the end.

Anyways, I should wrap this up before I start rambling more. I've quit playing some games because there were parts that were just too hard, barring me from finishing it and some instances where I've stopped because it wasn't fun for me to play. I think whatever your excuse for stopping, you've done more research into the game than those who haven't. So, by that logic alone, I think you have good reason to give your opinion of a game, whether you've seen it through to the end or not.

Also, bear in mind, Yahtzee's a video game CRITIC, not a REVIEWER. Some might say that's splitting hairs, but reviewers have more of an obligation to see everything the game has to offer because they're (Supposed to be) the professional teams of players that each give their own opinion. A critic is a single individual who recounts his personal experience with the game, kinda like how your friend tells you that he rented X game over the weekend and that it totally rocked or sucked.

 

[HT_Black]

Yes, it can. There are isolated cases in the industry where a game is so difficult, monotonous, or poorly-programmed where a critic can be forgiven for assuming the ten hours that lead up to it were representative of the game's overall quality. Such examples include Final Fantasy 13, Twilight Princess, Sonic Unleashed, Borderlands, and so on. If the entire game is built about the repitition of a single action, it could arguably written off after the first ten minutes.

 

[valleyshrew]

It's absolutely not necessary to finish SOME games to review them, only ones where the writing is the main focus (e.g. mass effect). In the case of FFXIII most agree the writing is convoluted nonsense that needs not be addressed, and the gameplay is barely more than battles and walking forward, and the battle system is extremely dumbed down. So it's completely reasonable to review it after 10 hours, there's nothing worth seeing after that. Though you can offer a more complete criticism if you play the whole thing, you don't need to. Can you review the star wars prequel trilogy without watching attack of the clones and revenge of the sith?

 

[JPArbiter]

a single reviewer rather then a team of them under deadline and trudging through a god aweful RETAIL COPY rather then a debug copy of a game? yes if a game is horrible enough that the reviewer can not bring himself to force a completion then I think that is a pretty strong condemnation of the game itself, perhaps the strongest condemnation

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

User Reviews and blogs? Sure. But if someone is paid to review a game to give me an accurate impression of its quality then they sure as hell better finish it. There is also a thing called journalistic integrity, a thing a few reviewers need to be reminded of. No one else could do 70% of a job and expect to be paid for it.
EDIT: Yahtzee excluded. He is a entertainer, not a reviewer.

 

[ItsAChiaotzu]

Yahtzee is not a reviewer.
Yahtzee is a comedian.

That is all.

 

[Marter]

Absolutely.

Finishing the medium in question only allows you to finish critiquing the story, a part that you won't necessarily touch on that much anyway. If you bring up much that happens after the first hour, you will be called for spoiling it.

The only reason it wouldn't be okay would be if the gameplay changed drastically every few levels or something, where you need to play it through to the end in order to experience more or less all of the gameplay.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

No, a game is like a book, a whole package, especially games with stories as their main ingredient (like FFXIII which he only played a tenth of the game's length) not getting the full idea about their ending and happenings is a grave mistake.


Reviewing is a JOB, you can't say you're not having fun and suddenly stop working. It's the cheap person's way of doing that and in any job you'd get fired on the spot. If you really dislike a game, do finish it and then review it whole. If you don't you're just irrelavant and don't know what you're talking about since you don't have the full picture but only slight fragments and guesswork.

 

[Norris IV]

Tbh if a game is so bad or so long that it cannot be finished then it doesn't matter. I am yet to finish the storyline of Black ops as i just found it longwinded and boring (not because of the online, i pefer halo for that)

 

[Gudrests]

What if he's reviewing a MMO.

OT: Also most reviewers actually DO finish games, but you can't call Yahtzee a classic reviewer. People watch his reviews for lulz and not actual game reviews. (at least I hope so) Also I'm pretty sure that it would be at least fair for a reviewer to actually finish a game because not all content can be experienced and judged properly. (Exception: Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing)

think about it tho...if the game was so bad...not even just bad but poorly made that he doesn't want to finish it....that should tell miles in itself

 

[mireko]

That really depends on the content of the review itself.

Any points made about the game will be valid so long as they are rooted in facts or clearly based in opinion. It does, however, destroy the validity of a "bottom line" note or a score.

But since you're using Yahtzee as an example, and he doesn't usually use those, it shouldn't really be a problem.

[sub]That said, if you enjoy a game that he hates then I'm not sure why it matters to you. Having a different opinion is *gasp* pretty normal.[/sub]

 

[Wintermoot]

not entirly but reviewers dont have the time to play the complete game

 

[SkyeNeko]

Yes. If I don't like a game in the first hour or so, there's little chance of me liking it for the second. There aren't too many things that make you put down a game in the first few hours that will redeem themselves later.

 

[ultimateownage]

He never finished Saints Row 2 either, and he loved that. Of course he can not finish it; even if there was a shit game that somehow became brilliant in the last ten minutes I would still call it a shit game. The quality should be present throughout, and if it doesn't give a good impression in all of the time he spent playing it then it won't be giving a good impression at the very end either.
Assumptions aren't always full of shit you know.

 

[Macrobstar]

What if he's reviewing a MMO.

OT: Also most reviewers actually DO finish games, but you can't call Yahtzee a classic reviewer. People watch his reviews for lulz and not actual game reviews. (at least I hope so) Also I'm pretty sure that it would be at least fair for a reviewer to actually finish a game because not all content can be experienced and judged properly. (Exception: Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing)

I don't use him for consumer advice, but he certainly raises valid points about games

 

[VaudevillianVeteran]

I don't think so. It's the equivalent of someone falling asleep in the middle of a film then reviewing it anyway. You need to play it to the end to review it all.
I suppose it can be done, but you need to cover it from start to finish in order to cover all ground.
Although, for some games that are ongoing MMOs I suppose playing it for a good number of weeks or days and getting the gameplay and social aspects of it down.

 

[Ace of Spades]

Yes. I feel that I have the capacity to review FF13 despite not having finished it. I put in more than 10 hours of time into that game and it was still blisteringly awful, and by that point, no amount of good gameplay could make up for that much of a time requirement.