Poll: Should a person reviewing a game finish it?

[Breno]

I don't want to mention names but i have seen alot of reviews when it is clear to see they did't actually finish the game ie (confused about a story bit when it is explained in the end)

i'm not sure if its okay if you only go 80% finished and decide it is okay to review as it is not reviewing the whole game experance

on the other hand if a person reviewing a game thaught they could'nt finish it (it was too bad to finish) then maybe its acceptable...

 

[TheIronRuler]

I don't want to mention names but i have seen alot of reviews when it is clear to see they did't actually finish the game ie (confused about a story bit when it is explained in the end)

i'm not sure if its okay if you only go 80% finished and decide it is okay to review as it is not reviewing the whole game experance

on the other hand if a person reviewing a game thaught they could'nt finish it (it was too bad to finish) then maybe its acceptable...

No.
If a person doesn't finish the game and submits a review it is caused by either one of two reasons:
1. The game is horrible, therefore he cannot continue on playing.
2. There is a time issue, or the reviewer is unprofessional.

Some games can't be player, like Yahtzee couldn't finish 'The Witcher 2'.
He still made the review even though he was only halfway through. The reason is that he couldn't finish it, because he isn't a PC elitist. Wait, that's not the reason. Something about the game not holding his hand and jakcing him off with achievements every time he presses a button....
But I digress.
Yes, it's fine to do so, especially if it's a puzzle game. The story only adds to the experience, you can't say that the game will be better if you continue on playing it, that's just stupid.

 

[Korak the Mad]

I believe that if you have gotten the majority done in a game that you are reviewing you don't need to finish it, especially if that game is a piece of crap.

 

[Aris Khandr]

Not at all. If a game is bad, I don't feel the need to get to the end before I tell people it is bad. Similarly, if a game is a lot of fun, why would I have to finish the game before I tell people how much fun I'm having? I knew that Pokemon White was a great addition to the franchise by the third gym.

 

[jacobythehedgehog]

I don't think you have to finish the game. Extra Credits says at time the first 1-3 hours of the game tells you everything about the game.

 

[bob1052]

I think it is absolutely fine for reviewers to not finish unbearably bad games.

Some games can't be player, like Yahtzee couldn't finish 'The Witcher 2'.
He still made the review even though he was only halfway through. The reason is that he couldn't finish it, because he isn't a PC elitist. Wait, that's not the reason. Something about the game not holding his hand and jakcing him off with achievements every time he presses a button....
But I digress.
Yes, it's fine to do so, especially if it's a puzzle game. The story only adds to the experience, you can't say that the game will be better if you continue on playing it, that's just stupid.

I was going to post exactly on that topic.

The problem comes, not when they don't play the whole game, but rather when they do not give factual information in their reviews because they perhaps did not play as much as necessarily. Zero Punctuation on The Witcher 2 is a perfect example of misinformation spawned from a lack of time with the game.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

I know that the only FF I've beaten is 13, but I got close to the end (last disc/final dungeon) of 7, 8, 9, 10, X-2, and 5. Does that make my opinion on them invalid?

I don't think so.

But I'd hesistate to review any of them but 13. Due to story being a heavy part of those games.

It also depends on the game's content.

Some games have an incomplete story if you don't play it a certain way, like LA Noire. I wouldn't trust any review from a guy with 2 star case reviews. Whether he/she "beat" the game or not.

 

[Phishfood]

I don't need to finish a game to condemn it as a buggy piece of crap.

Also, define finish - I mean, should a person do every quest in fallout 3, visit every area, play the game as a gunner, play as an assassin, play as a pacifist before submitting a review?

I think its utterly ridiculous to have to finish a game to have an opinion about it. I haven't finished games I liked (witcher, fallout NV) and have finished games I didn't (Mafia 2).

What I'm saying here is that if the first X % of a game makes you hate it the rest of it probably won't make up for it.

 

[Jegsimmons]

well...no...not really, if the game is just unplayable or actually cause physical illness to the reviewer then he/she shouldn't torture themselves with it.

 

[DEAD34345]

In an ideal world reviewers would completely finish any game they reviewed. This is not an ideal world, and this simply isn't possible due to time requirements. I think the current system works well enough, and if a bad review is caused by a game being terrible up to a certain point, then that is the game's failing rather than the reviewer's. I've never actually heard of any games that are the other way around.

 

[blackdwarf]

it depends on the game, some games are too long to finish, and some games are just so bad, that you won't want to play them anymore.

 

[Twilight_guy]

No. If a game is unfun for say 10 hours and reviewer can't stand it anymore it doesn't matter if the rest of the game is a heroin drip into the blood stream the fact that it was unfun for 10 hours is a black eye that the game can't escape. On top of that, most games have the majority of its mechanic and core play touched on in the first few hours and although the setting may change the way you play, the gameplay, and really the fun which is mostly based on this doesn't change that much through the rest of the game. you may say "story incomplete, do not want" but I think that story is only part of the picture and since story never saved a game from sucking is not the most important aspect.

 

[Vampire cat]

Sniper: Ghost Warrior

You don't need to play a whole lot to realize what a shit game it is, and I haven't held back when informing people about just that despite never playing more than 6-7 missions.

 

[Breno]

dose anyone not think that an ending to a game or coming close the end that the game may be start becoming better or worse?? eg brutal legend....

my point is games can change in experances as the game progress

 

[bob1052]

dose anyone not think that an ending to a game or coming close the end that the game may be start becoming better or worse?? eg brutal legend....

my point is games can change in experances as the game progress

If the game is good the reviewer won't have much trouble justifying their time finishing it.

If the game is total shit for the entirety except the ending then the ending is irrelevant.

 

[Falseprophet]

No, but professionalism demands they be up front about it. Otherwise, I only needed 2 hours to be sucked into Dragon Age: Origins, and even less time to realize Damnation was a steaming turd. A professional reviewer should probably give a lot more time and try different options/multiplayer/etc., but I don't think you need to sink whole days into a game to get a feel for it.

 

[Darth IB]

The way I see it, the most important thing is that the reviewer states in the review how much of the game he/she completed, so that the audience is aware of what the opinion is based on.
And, of course, the reason why the reviewer didn't finish the game.

 

[The Rockerfly]

If anyone answers yes, review world of warcraft. It is unrealistic and if a player isn't having fun till the last ten minutes does that make the game good that you have to go through so much shit? No and it shouldn't be defence for a game either

 

[NormalityImpaired]

If i think a game sucks, i won't finish it and i would make that point clear when giving my opinion of it and my reasons for not having finished it. Therefor if a reviewer does the same, it's all good. You may or may not have the same experience as they did, take what is said with a grain of salt and find out on your own. That is, if you only base your purchasing habits on the reviews of one person. If you find the trend for any particular game to be the same in multiple reviews from different sources, then maybe there is something to it. If you have the funding, go find out for yourself.

 

[Lord_Gremlin]

Yes, they should finish it. I remember many games that were fun until the last level, which is horrid chore. What kind of shit reviewer review game if he can't be sure it doesn't get shitty in the last moment?