Poll: Should a person reviewing a game finish it?
- Thread starter Breno
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It depends on how they're reviewing it. If they are going to be taking points off for the story of the game, I'd say it'd be relevant to play the whole thing through, but I don't expect most reviewers to play the whole thing.
OP I've noticed that too. I've also noticed a lot of reviews where the reviewer has admitted to not playing/spending much time in a certain gamemode (like multiplayer) - and then brushing it off like it's no big thing. How are you supposed to describe gameplay experience if you only bothered to play the singleplayer portion of the game?
I guess it's unreasonable to expect reviewers to play every game to completion.. but that doesn't stop me from sometimes coming away from a review feeling like I can't really trust their opinion.
I guess it's unreasonable to expect reviewers to play every game to completion.. but that doesn't stop me from sometimes coming away from a review feeling like I can't really trust their opinion.
scnj said:
That would be great.Darth IB said:
Well, you don't keep eating three-course dinners at a terrible restaurant just because the desert is amazing. Those who suggest that game experiences change over time, you're definitely right, but a game that doesn't get good until ten or twelve hours in is still a bad game. Yes, I'd have kicked myself for not pushing through the slow beginnings of Kingdom Hearts or Jedi Knight 2, but in most cases, what you're doing in the first hour of gameplay isn't all that different from what you'll be doing in the last hour. The context and abilities may change, but if the core mechanics aren't already engaging in the first few hours, no amount of window dressing can change that.
We're also not considering games which cannot be finished -- Madden, The Sims, World of Warcraft, etc. There is no "end" to those games in the sense suggested by the question.
We're also not considering games which cannot be finished -- Madden, The Sims, World of Warcraft, etc. There is no "end" to those games in the sense suggested by the question.
No. Lord, no. I mean, unless we stop reviewing Final Fantasy games altogether, no way should game reviewers be required to finish a game. It's one thing to finish Mirror's Edge in an afternoon. With our industry's morbid obsession with game length, though, we've birthed some monstrosities that you just can't expect reviewers to actually finish.
Second, any game worth it's salt should deliver a representative idea of the experience it has to offer fairly early into the playthrough. If you -have- to play more than five hours to "get" a game, it's usually not worth getting. If your plot makes no god damn sense until the very end of a fifty hour game, that's the developers problem; they made a game that makes no god damn sense until fifty hours in. That's simply not a good argument for wasting a reviewer's time.
Last but not least, some games are just plain awful. I would not wish having to finish Kane & Lynch 2 on my worst enemy.
Now, there should still be some requirement on a reviewer; taking a five-minute glance at a game isn't giving any game a fair shake. However, when the only half sensible poll option suggests getting at least "the majority of the game experience", punctuated by a suggestion of "80%" in the original post, you've lost me. 80% of a run of the mill JRPG takes 40 hours to complete. That's a whole week's labor for a video game journalist. If we for argument's sake assume that journalist makes $20/hour, are you suggesting we demand video game sites like The Escapist spend $800 in wages to review "the whole game experance (sic)"? Are you for real?
If a game can't deliver a fair estimate of the game experience in between 5-10 hours, I don't want to waste my time on that game. I think it's unfair to expect more from reviewers.
Second, any game worth it's salt should deliver a representative idea of the experience it has to offer fairly early into the playthrough. If you -have- to play more than five hours to "get" a game, it's usually not worth getting. If your plot makes no god damn sense until the very end of a fifty hour game, that's the developers problem; they made a game that makes no god damn sense until fifty hours in. That's simply not a good argument for wasting a reviewer's time.
Last but not least, some games are just plain awful. I would not wish having to finish Kane & Lynch 2 on my worst enemy.
Now, there should still be some requirement on a reviewer; taking a five-minute glance at a game isn't giving any game a fair shake. However, when the only half sensible poll option suggests getting at least "the majority of the game experience", punctuated by a suggestion of "80%" in the original post, you've lost me. 80% of a run of the mill JRPG takes 40 hours to complete. That's a whole week's labor for a video game journalist. If we for argument's sake assume that journalist makes $20/hour, are you suggesting we demand video game sites like The Escapist spend $800 in wages to review "the whole game experance (sic)"? Are you for real?
If a game can't deliver a fair estimate of the game experience in between 5-10 hours, I don't want to waste my time on that game. I think it's unfair to expect more from reviewers.
If a game takes too long to start being fun, it's not doing it's job to entertain. It's also very rare for a game to suddenly go from terrible to awesome. There are a handful of games that were highly praised that I just HAD to finish; even though I wasn't enjoying myself, I was assuming that it was going to get better and it didn't.
Having finished the game is nice, but all I really need my reviews to tell me is one thing: will I have fun with the game? I don't need an in-depth blow-by-blow analysis. Do the mechanics work? Does it try anything interesting? Is it well acted? Chances are whatever their answers are if they are more than half-way through will be consistent for the entire game.
I've yet to see a game that was really efing good for 99% of the way, then turned into an absolutely irredeemable experience in the final 1%. Conversely I've never played a $#!t game that was $#!t for most of the way through then turned into a 5-star experience in the last twelve seconds.
I've yet to see a game that was really efing good for 99% of the way, then turned into an absolutely irredeemable experience in the final 1%. Conversely I've never played a $#!t game that was $#!t for most of the way through then turned into a 5-star experience in the last twelve seconds.
Well if a game doesn't give you enough reason to continue it says something. Especially if someone with paid incentive can't find enough reason to continue it- gamers don't get paid, so they're probably unlikely to continue a lot further than a critic did in most cases.
For the most part yes. Like stated before if the game is so horrible that it is completely unplayable after a certain point due to horrible design I say that could be an exception. But, I recall watching a review of Dragon Quest 8 which was full of ignorance and bashing the game even though the reviewer never actually finished the game. It was very unprofessional and put together poorly.
If you complete the stories main campaign you can review it. No need to play multiplayer, no need to do side missions, and no need to 100%.
They are side missions and extras for a reason. 100% of a game is hard to achieve especially for someone who releases reviews as a weekly serial.
They are side missions and extras for a reason. 100% of a game is hard to achieve especially for someone who releases reviews as a weekly serial.
I think if Yahztee finished Prototype he would have hated it a lot more.
*SPOILERS*
You can't kill me, I'm the only one who knows the code!
Alex: OH SNAP
Me: wait, don't you absorb people's memories when you consume them, and aren't half the sidequests in this game about doing just that to get secret codes?
*SPOILERS*
You can't kill me, I'm the only one who knows the code!
Alex: OH SNAP
Me: wait, don't you absorb people's memories when you consume them, and aren't half the sidequests in this game about doing just that to get secret codes?
If a game is horrible to the point where you don't want to play, then fine. I do feel if you can play most the game and get the general FEEL of the game, then I guess, but you shouldn't stop playing. The ending is where the resolution and probably the climax happens, so you should play to the end.
Why are people defending the fact that the reviewer shouldnt end the game? I get it if we are talking about things like challenges but an actual single player game? He is getting paid to do his job, he doesnt need to like it. Its his job to give the review of the entire game.
What if a reviewer stopped playing Bioshock right before the big reveal? The major thing about Bioshock is that particular reveal, it is fucking important for the game. The reviewer would say that the game was a copy of System Shock and give it a crappy score.
Movie reviewers dont leave theathers in the midle of a movie. The Watchmen would get bombed if they did that, also Se7en.
What if a reviewer stopped playing Bioshock right before the big reveal? The major thing about Bioshock is that particular reveal, it is fucking important for the game. The reviewer would say that the game was a copy of System Shock and give it a crappy score.
Movie reviewers dont leave theathers in the midle of a movie. The Watchmen would get bombed if they did that, also Se7en.
Depends. If you're trying to fairly evaluate its artistic value, then you should probably play it all the way through so you can actually do so. If you aren't, and you just want to rip on it (á la Yahtzee), then there isn't much point finishing if you desperately don't want to.
No if the first few missions or hours into the game make you want to pound nails into your eyes than that is most likely how your going to feel about the rest of the game, so I don't see any reason need for the reviewer to go through more of it just so he can say he finished it and it sucks.
When I read the reviews of a professional gaming website I expect that they have finished the game before they score it. (This is assuming the game has an end, and it is assuming it runs well enough that you can finish it.)
I don't hold opinion pieces to the same standard. If someone wants to write an article about how they didn't like X because of Y, and they gave up on it, I don't consider that a problem. I'd classify Zero Punctuation as an opinion piece - the Escapist doesn't include ZP in the Reviews section for a reason
I don't hold opinion pieces to the same standard. If someone wants to write an article about how they didn't like X because of Y, and they gave up on it, I don't consider that a problem. I'd classify Zero Punctuation as an opinion piece - the Escapist doesn't include ZP in the Reviews section for a reason