So because you didn't finish eating a plate of dog shit means you complain about it? If a game gives no enjoyment or desire to finish it why does that count as a negative toward the reviewer?
Poll: Can a review be valid if the reviewer did not finish the game in question?
- Thread starter Lord Doomhammer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
He was close to the end of the game in question. He got harrangled by a boss.darth.pixie said:
More than enough time. (I notice this part isn't clarified in the opening post.)
So yes.
As for his Final Fantasy 13 review... It's Final Fantasy 13. He could've not played it at all and known it was bad.
EDIT: Actually, I'm reminded of the recent film that, to my knowledge, was the only one Ebert actually walked out of. I'd say that's a pretty telling review in itself.
And you're completely fine in having that opinion. It's no more or less valid than anyone else's that I've heard.
Personally, I just hated how inconsequential the intro seemed. We spent 2 hours of playing as Roxas, but just when we started seeing glimpses of what could have made him an interesting character, we're forced into playing the remainder of the game as Sora. And we never hear from Roxas again for the rest of the game (Well, except for that cutscene fight at the end of the game, but he's there for only, like, 2 minutes tops, so I'm not sure it's worth mentioning).
Personally, I just hated how inconsequential the intro seemed. We spent 2 hours of playing as Roxas, but just when we started seeing glimpses of what could have made him an interesting character, we're forced into playing the remainder of the game as Sora. And we never hear from Roxas again for the rest of the game (Well, except for that cutscene fight at the end of the game, but he's there for only, like, 2 minutes tops, so I'm not sure it's worth mentioning).
Wrong, you don't "beat" or finish a game to say you can review it. Play controls, sounds, graphics, storyline....
What you need all 100% trophies or you haven't seen it all? Sorry. Not valid.
Game reviewers do that, they review...they play and if in their experience they enjoyed it they say so. If not they say what they did not enjoy. I doubt the last level of Mind Jack unlocked a graphics that did not suck option and a computer AI ON setting.
So he's not so full of crap, as much as you have a strange idea of how much of something someone needs to sit through before they are allowed a opinion.
What you need all 100% trophies or you haven't seen it all? Sorry. Not valid.
Game reviewers do that, they review...they play and if in their experience they enjoyed it they say so. If not they say what they did not enjoy. I doubt the last level of Mind Jack unlocked a graphics that did not suck option and a computer AI ON setting.
So he's not so full of crap, as much as you have a strange idea of how much of something someone needs to sit through before they are allowed a opinion.
I think 20 hours in any game should give you enough room to write a decent review. Maybe 30 for an RPG. But really by that time you should be familiar enough with the mechanics, the querks, and the story/story telling to review it. Sure you may not get to some epic ending but the fact is, if the game wasn't good for the first 30 hours, having a good ending isn't going to make it a good game. It'll be a bad game with a good ending which doesn't really mean much.
yes. You odnt need to finish to know that Aquaman and Drake of the 99 Dragons is gonna suck.
you didnt even need to play to know that Custer's Revenge was a bad game.
you didnt even need to play to know that Custer's Revenge was a bad game.
Well if the game is massive, but they played a majority of it then i think so, if they stopped through hatred/boredom (despite several hours of gameplay) then yes, if a game can't be fun enough to keep you playing it's not the reviewers fault. I believe it was yahtzee in a final fantasy game saying why not get the player invested in the beggining then put all the grinding in the middle. If a game is not good enough in the beggining why should people assume the rest is much better? If it does get better why should we have to endure the shit parts to get to good parts?
I don't think you have to finish it.
It largely depends on the game, but if the fundamental mechanics suck ass, then they're hardly going to change at the end of the game, and even then, it may not justify putting up with crap. If the reviewer can justify it, then yeah, finishing a game isn't necessary to review it.
It's not like a film, which is only a few hours long, games require a significant time investment, and also the fact that a game dissuades you so much from finishing it can speak a lot about the game too.
It largely depends on the game, but if the fundamental mechanics suck ass, then they're hardly going to change at the end of the game, and even then, it may not justify putting up with crap. If the reviewer can justify it, then yeah, finishing a game isn't necessary to review it.
It's not like a film, which is only a few hours long, games require a significant time investment, and also the fact that a game dissuades you so much from finishing it can speak a lot about the game too.
If you can't finish the game because of lack of time then obviously no. But i've played games before i could't finish because they were either A) repetitive B) boring C) down right stupid.
A game should be fun. Each game can take some getting used to but if you're still not enjoying yourself after about 4 to hours. Thats a clear sign the game is stupid.
A game should be fun. Each game can take some getting used to but if you're still not enjoying yourself after about 4 to hours. Thats a clear sign the game is stupid.
Meh...
It really depends on the game.
If it's something where it really doesn't matter, then just mention the fact in the review.
If it's something like Portal, Bioshock, etc, then yes, they have to finish it.
It really depends on the game.
If it's something where it really doesn't matter, then just mention the fact in the review.
If it's something like Portal, Bioshock, etc, then yes, they have to finish it.
Ah, I was wondering how many chapters there were. I remember someone telling me there was 11. I'm half-way through, and I was wondering if there any point in doing a new game + after?Kopikatsu said:
I'd apreciate your opinion.
OT: It is a liitle annoying that he doesn't finish the game, but then again, he does have to sit through crap games one after the other, so that has got to try your patience after a while.
Yes it's still perfectly valid.
If you find something so excruciatingly awful that you couldn't finish, even in the unlikely event that it gets better later, it still won't make up for the hours of your life you wasted getting their.
I use the same sort of rules with games that I use with books. I don't care how many people have praised the book as a whole article, if I'm not hooked by the end of Chapter 10 then the book hasn't done it's job properly. I don't care how well written the climax is if I don't give a shit about the plot or the characters involved long before I get there.
And anyway, with games like RPG's for example even if you do finish the main story in the review you've probably only done a minimal amount of the side quests so you still don't really have a handle on the overall experience.
If you find something so excruciatingly awful that you couldn't finish, even in the unlikely event that it gets better later, it still won't make up for the hours of your life you wasted getting their.
I use the same sort of rules with games that I use with books. I don't care how many people have praised the book as a whole article, if I'm not hooked by the end of Chapter 10 then the book hasn't done it's job properly. I don't care how well written the climax is if I don't give a shit about the plot or the characters involved long before I get there.
And anyway, with games like RPG's for example even if you do finish the main story in the review you've probably only done a minimal amount of the side quests so you still don't really have a handle on the overall experience.
I believe that the sole fact that a person posted a review without finishing the game, is already a kind of critique of the game in question. A good example would be Zero Punctuation: Final Fantasy XIII. 5 hours were enough for Yahtzee to consider chewing off his own face and that's never a good sign. And before someone calls me on this, saying that he is not to be taken serious, the opinion he expressed in his Extra Punctuation column about the game did not differ from the one in his review.
As first post said
Exactly. Professionals MUST complete a game if they are to do a professional review of a game. User reviews are terribly unreliable anyway (Giving either 0 for "Didn't like it/Hate it" or 10 for "Enjoyed it/Loved it"), and if they haven't finished it, then you take them even less seriously.NeutralDrow said: