Poll: Should a person reviewing a game finish it?

[spartan231490]

Of course it's ok. a Brilliant ending doesn't make up for a horrible game, and most reviewers don't have the time to finish super long RPGs. As long as they have a good feel for the game play and at least a general idea about where the story is going, then it's ok. I do think they should say in the review that "I only played X far in the game." so you know how much of the game they are reviewing. Personally, I've never seen a game that I thought was good or bad and then changed my opinion in the second half. If you play about half the game, you know if it's good or bad.

 

[Trivun]

Nnnnnhhhhhh, I put the second option in the poll, purely because there isn't an option for 'depends'. Which I think there should be. Thing is, some games it just isn't feasible, but some games it is. And it depends on the workload of the reviewer. It's like, if it's a relatively short game, or it's a game that's got a short story and then bulked out by other stuff (and I don't mean just multiplayer, I mean Fallout 3 for example, which has a fairly short story but is more than made up for with hours upon hours of sidequests), then I think the reviewer should make an effort to complete at least that story first. Unless they have a massive workload, like multiple games or if they have another job (like Yahtzee writes for PC Gamer, has the Mana Bar and a TV pilot, he has his own games he's allegedly working on, etc...).

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that when the reviewer has the time and energy and only has one or two games to worry about, then yes, they should make the effort to finish them. If they don't have that luxury, then they at least need to play through as much as possible simply to get the best possible look at the game and make an informed and fair judgement.

I for one, however, make it a habit to never trust any reviewer who doesn't put at least a couple of hours into the game. Same with people who only listen to half an album, or leave a film halfway through. If you simply can't be bothered to put in the required effort, then why is your opinion worth my time listening to?

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

They don't need to finish it, but they must make it very clear in the review that they didn't finish it, and explain why.

 

[Henkie36]

Well, when a game is as linear and boring as say... FF XIII, then no. I totally understood Yathzee for not playing it till the end because even watching this game is slightly more boring then Morgan Freeman reading you the bible.

 

[GonzoGamer]

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...

When you say 100% finish, do you mean the gta 100% (platinum trophy style) finish? If so, I think that?s unreasonable. Most games aren?t really very long at all anymore so I don?t think it?s unreasonable for a reviewer to finish playing through a game provided that game is playable. Couldn?t blame anyone for not finishing New Vegas. I wasn?t halfway through with that when I realized I made a big mistake.

 

[Joshica Huracane]

I review games on my own blog, and while it isn't a professional operation, I try to be as professional as possible. I think the reviewer should try thier best to get as far through the game as possible, but if finishing it isn't a likely outcome due to time constraints, I think that's acceptable. If you can't play a game any longer because it's just terrible, then that's going to say alot about the game, if you can back it up with why it was so terrible.

Some things can't really be commented on if you don't finish a game though. I know some games that kind of drop the ball right at the end, and if you don;t play that far through, you aren't able to express your thoughts on that. But really, if you're able to experience the heart of the gameplay, and understand what's going on storywise, it's not particularly unprofessional to not play all the way through.

So, in short, reviewers should never stop playing a game just because they feel like it. If they have a review to post, and the game is bearable and not too long to finish within your alotted time, then by all means they should finish it.

 

[Anachronism]

If they're open about the fact that they didn't finish it, I don't see the issue.

You read a review to find out what that person thought about a game. If they disliked the game to the point where they didn't want to keep playing it, that should tell you all you need to know. While people might argue, in the case of some games, that you ought to keep playing because it gets better later, I'm not convinced that's enough justification. A good game shouldn't need to get better later; it ought to be good right from the start. For instance, much though I love Jedi Outcast, if someone told me they gave up after a couple of hours, I wouldn't blame them; the first few levels before you get the lightsabre simply aren't very good.

 

[nuba km]

I am not voting because I don't agree with either of those options, if a game is so bad that you don't even want to play it for 30 minuets, then it is fair to review the game as long as you mention the fact that you were only able to play that far through the game without wanting to smash your face in on a brick. Also if you can't get through the game in the time you have then just mention in your review that you couldn't finish it but from what you have played this is what you think...

So to sum up as long as you mention how far you got through the game it is fine to review it at any point really.

 

[Hamhandderhard]

It depends.

If it's a game that isn't sandbox, the I would go for 100% completion but if it is sandbox then no. I mean, you can enjoy or not enjoy Red Dead Redemption without getting 100% completion and you don't need to finish all the quests in Fallout New Vegas to tell you if it's a good game or not.

 

[DustStorm]

I believe that a reviewer should play to the end where possible, but not necessarily 100% finsh the game. For example, completing AC: Brotherhood to 100% completion could take more thana week in which case completing the main storyline and a handful of the side missions would be acceptable.

 

[Beertaster]

No one needs to finish a game to know if its good or not. Not even the best games. Most reviewers just need to be able to identify both the individual pieces that make up the game and then the game's worth over all. If I play through two thirds of halo 3. That means I have seen the games graphical capabilities, its game mechanics, AI capabilities, how the story flows, level design and written dialogue. By this point I have played with the games weapons and tools, interacted with many different NCPs and have an overall feel of what exactly this game is, even without playing through to the end.

There was an Extra Credits where they said a designer only needs to play for an hour (hour may not be what they said) max to learn about a new game. The rest of the game is there, and may be great, but its not going to teach anything new.