Yahtzee is a critic. He goes by the Guitar Hero review style. If it starts sucking way too much for him, he's done. He won't give points based on how good it theoretically might be.The_root_of_all_evil said:
Reviewers Should Finish Games, Says Zampella
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Recommended Videos
First of all, I basically agree.
Reviewers should be well informed before they write and publish a review.
It really bugs me to read someone complaining about something missing from that game that is actually very much there... which they would've known if they didn't skip the manual, intro, tutorial mission, and in-game help feature.
The thing where reviewers mentioned Arkham Asylum being buggy for many others while it really wasn't, made me feel sad/angry, although that wasn't really/completely the reviewers' faults.
I can imagine them not feeling like finishing every single game though, them having lives and everything.
I played the demo for that recent-ish Turok game, and where I usually think demos are much too short, I actually couldn't even be bothered to finished this one out of boredom.
I very much doubt the full game shakes things up much; demos are supposed to show some of the best of the game.
There is also the fact that regular players tend to not finish their games either, according to statistics.
If Joe Average only plays the first half of their games, isn't reviewing the first half actually more indicative of the player's experience than reviewing the entire thing anyway?
Reviewers should be well informed before they write and publish a review.
It really bugs me to read someone complaining about something missing from that game that is actually very much there... which they would've known if they didn't skip the manual, intro, tutorial mission, and in-game help feature.
The thing where reviewers mentioned Arkham Asylum being buggy for many others while it really wasn't, made me feel sad/angry, although that wasn't really/completely the reviewers' faults.
I can imagine them not feeling like finishing every single game though, them having lives and everything.
I played the demo for that recent-ish Turok game, and where I usually think demos are much too short, I actually couldn't even be bothered to finished this one out of boredom.
I very much doubt the full game shakes things up much; demos are supposed to show some of the best of the game.
There is also the fact that regular players tend to not finish their games either, according to statistics.
If Joe Average only plays the first half of their games, isn't reviewing the first half actually more indicative of the player's experience than reviewing the entire thing anyway?
I agree, except for one circumstance where the game is so terrible that the reviewer can't keep playing it anymore, but those are extremely rare cases.
Generally speaking, of course a reviewer should finish a game, but if he doesn't it would be irresponsible not to mention that.
Agreed. I seem to be agreeing to pretty much every post you make, Fargo. You must be my long lost brother!FargoDog said:
OT: It depends on the game. Take Oblivion - how long would that take to complete 100%? It would be impossible if given a deadline of a few weeks. Sure, you could do the main quest line but you wouldn't hit up every nook and crany of the game, but neither do I think you have to.
As Fargo said MW2 was particularly short so reviewers should try and aim for a happy compromise if the game is long in the proverbial tooth.
(Probably going off topic...) However I would also like to ask developers to release games that are actually finished. It's not as bad as a few years ago, (at least in my experience - I could be wrong) but releasing games and then patching it to 'fix' the game is insulting.
This also affects the review negatively and generally doesn't bode well for the final product and potential customers will stay clear of it.
I've also found, as I have said before, on the likes of GameSpy (now that a lot of the old reviewers are gone, as are the 5 page reviews) some reviewers compare games solely on what they enjoy/prefer instead of perhaps giving their opinions as well as giving an impartial view over what they feel is good and bad about it.
My feelings exactly. It's one thing to criticize a story that you didn't finish, and it's another thing to say that the mechanics/interface/gameplay are so terrible that it's not even worth playing in the first place. The latter is an honest assessment, the former is bullshit.Sgt. Sykes said:
I agree, but with something to tack onto this.
Reviewers should finish games they review. granted that the game doesn't eat out too much of their time; or if the game is literally un-finishable (pointing fingers at MMO's, games spesifically designed for multiplayer exclusive, games designed to never end.)
When the reviewer plays a game designe to never end; then they should at least play enough of it to form an opinion from not only the tutorial or the first 5 hours of the game, but hopefully a little taste of everything the game has to offer.
Reviewers should finish games they review. granted that the game doesn't eat out too much of their time; or if the game is literally un-finishable (pointing fingers at MMO's, games spesifically designed for multiplayer exclusive, games designed to never end.)
When the reviewer plays a game designe to never end; then they should at least play enough of it to form an opinion from not only the tutorial or the first 5 hours of the game, but hopefully a little taste of everything the game has to offer.
I think the reviewers only duty is to be honest, which means, if he reviews a game based on the box art, then that's fine, so long a description of his exposure to the game--in this case none--is included in the review. Whether it meets the editorial standards of the publication is another matter, but so long as length of time spent with the game is mentioned, not finishing the game is cool with me.
If it is implied that the review is of the whole game, then I guess I have to agree with Zampella. However, I also think 10 hours should be enough to comment on controls, graphics, audio, narrative themes, and overall fun. If a game isn't good by then well...
If it is implied that the review is of the whole game, then I guess I have to agree with Zampella. However, I also think 10 hours should be enough to comment on controls, graphics, audio, narrative themes, and overall fun. If a game isn't good by then well...
Sorry, but that should be obvious: A game takes longer than two, maybe two and a half hours. Except for the occasional XBLA title most games exceed the average movies' length by far. Movies work distinctively different from games, as do books and music. Every medium has to be treated according to its needs.Space Spoons said:
That said, most movie, book and music critics "finish" whats on their plate before writing the actual review. But you cant always do that with games. Games are an active medium, as opposed to passive ones like movies and music. Means you actually have to do shit to use the medium. That can be extremly tiring over a prolonged period of time - a problem most people seldom have with movies, books or music.
Does anyone here saying reviewers should finish the games do actually review games themselves? And I dont mean in a kind of hobby way - maybe to put it up on these very forums - but maybe for an ezine with a deadline and all that stuff? Its easy to say games have to be finished when you have all the damn time you want. But when I get to review a game my boss gives me 5 days to do it. The game usually come one day late, so whats left are 4 lousy days to play the game and write the freaking review. That is simply not enough time to finish some damn epic RPG or explore a whole sandbox or what have you not. If the game cant unfold itself, show me all its precious features and establish a compelling story within the first 10 hours, then it just fucking fails! Stop whining about reviewers missing important stuff in your game and make games that dont keep the cool shit up until the very end...
To me, I find the "fun factor" to be of hefty concern along with story. A game could offer the most epic narrative to be seen, but play like deconstructing an automobile with your elbows. I play games to relax, and it is good to know when a reviewer upright tells you that a particular title is on the verge of masochism. So long as it is properly explained what portions of the game were played through, then at least one can gauge how to react to the review in question.
This is also where I can also see potential of a game missed by a reviewer. As many of you have said prior, it really depends a lot on the game in question. I don't see any reason why one couldn't finish Modern Warfare, but there are other games that actually take quite a while to complete the storyline. For example, if you tried to do a speed run on Bioshock, it would be a sore disappointment compared to an exploratory romp searching every shadow to immerse oneself in the world.
Also, what are the goals of the game? You can't really judge a fighter for its "story" alone. That is where the mechanics are going to be of prime concern to readers rather than if the scene where so-and-so avenges her brother makes you well up or not (most likely the latter).
This is also where I can also see potential of a game missed by a reviewer. As many of you have said prior, it really depends a lot on the game in question. I don't see any reason why one couldn't finish Modern Warfare, but there are other games that actually take quite a while to complete the storyline. For example, if you tried to do a speed run on Bioshock, it would be a sore disappointment compared to an exploratory romp searching every shadow to immerse oneself in the world.
Also, what are the goals of the game? You can't really judge a fighter for its "story" alone. That is where the mechanics are going to be of prime concern to readers rather than if the scene where so-and-so avenges her brother makes you well up or not (most likely the latter).
I'm a contributer as an amature games reviewer on a website and I can say that all the games I have written up on I have either completed or fully analyzed to the an extent where I can talk about it in a professional manner even though I am not recognised as such.
I think Vince is just being petulant because hes gotten a few bad write ups in responce to some of his games and is taking it out on the reviewers as opposed to actually taking on board what they say as something to consider.
I recently did a retrospective on Halo 3 and discussed how John 117 never seems to move faster than a casual stroll. So I fail to see how thats poor journalism on my part when its something prevalent in the series as a whole and not any one Halo game and its a functional critism considering in multiplayer you get killed when strolling from cover to cover or from your spawn in the middle of a killzone to cover.
If the critics are saying the game is slow and they have only played the intro levels then yeah its unfair if the game speeds up on lvl3 and they only played up lvl2 but if they say that the combat mechanics are sticky and slow and they have fought 20 odd battles be it FPS, RPG or some other collection of initials then its justified to call it out at the 2nd lvl.
Vince, grow up dude. You might be a big shot in the industry carrying your ego on the Modern Warfare Games but that doesnt give you the right to claim invulnerability to genuine critisms.
I think Vince is just being petulant because hes gotten a few bad write ups in responce to some of his games and is taking it out on the reviewers as opposed to actually taking on board what they say as something to consider.
I recently did a retrospective on Halo 3 and discussed how John 117 never seems to move faster than a casual stroll. So I fail to see how thats poor journalism on my part when its something prevalent in the series as a whole and not any one Halo game and its a functional critism considering in multiplayer you get killed when strolling from cover to cover or from your spawn in the middle of a killzone to cover.
If the critics are saying the game is slow and they have only played the intro levels then yeah its unfair if the game speeds up on lvl3 and they only played up lvl2 but if they say that the combat mechanics are sticky and slow and they have fought 20 odd battles be it FPS, RPG or some other collection of initials then its justified to call it out at the 2nd lvl.
Vince, grow up dude. You might be a big shot in the industry carrying your ego on the Modern Warfare Games but that doesnt give you the right to claim invulnerability to genuine critisms.
If a reviewer finds so little enjoyment in a game that he can't finish, yes it says something about the game, namely, that it sucks. NO, they shouldn't have to fucking finish the game if they don't want to, it's a fucking game review, it's not going to change the world.
Speaking as a player I rarely finish entire games because they are too long and can't hold my attention. I have started and stopped "Oblivion" maybe 8-9 times and have never seen the end. I have played more than 50 hours of "Fallout 3" without seeing the end. I have never played through "Diablo II" regardless of how many characters I have created in it. And I like those games.
I have rented or purchased games that have been so bad that I could not bring myself to finish playing the first level/chapter/mission. It is not necessary to play a game through to know it is bad or good, and I can give you examples: "Superman" for the Nintendo 64, "Peggle" by Popcap, and "The Simpsons" for the original Nintendo Game system.
If a reviewer dislikes a particular game style, be it FPS, MMORPG, RTS, or my personal bane TBS, then they can tell whether a particular game is going to turn them around on the subject without seeing the whole narrative.
I personally could not have finished "Doom" or "Quake", I played them on the easiest mode, took the games at a run, and just could not finish them. They stopped being fun, and while I could say that I got numerous hours of enjoyment from playing them, I didn't need to see the end to have gotten that positive feedback.
In my eyes, you can tell something is a turd with one bite, you need not finish the meal at that instance to give the review of "That was a piece of shit".
I have rented or purchased games that have been so bad that I could not bring myself to finish playing the first level/chapter/mission. It is not necessary to play a game through to know it is bad or good, and I can give you examples: "Superman" for the Nintendo 64, "Peggle" by Popcap, and "The Simpsons" for the original Nintendo Game system.
If a reviewer dislikes a particular game style, be it FPS, MMORPG, RTS, or my personal bane TBS, then they can tell whether a particular game is going to turn them around on the subject without seeing the whole narrative.
I personally could not have finished "Doom" or "Quake", I played them on the easiest mode, took the games at a run, and just could not finish them. They stopped being fun, and while I could say that I got numerous hours of enjoyment from playing them, I didn't need to see the end to have gotten that positive feedback.
In my eyes, you can tell something is a turd with one bite, you need not finish the meal at that instance to give the review of "That was a piece of shit".
In the case of people who write about games for a living, it should be small potatoes to be able to complete them---especially when games like MW2 are so short that a reviewer could come in to work, start playing them, and still have plenty of time to knock off for lunch?
It's a bit more of a challenge to do that with JRPGs, but the thing about Japanese games is once you play them for about three hours you know what you're gonna get for the rest of the game. What's the combat system, are the cutscenes and voice acting skippable---and how bad are they, that sort of thing.
But perhaps most telling? If it takes your game more than five hours to get interesting, your game sucks. Don't tell me "you need to finish the game" if the first five hours of gameplay suggest there's no reward in doing so.
It's a bit more of a challenge to do that with JRPGs, but the thing about Japanese games is once you play them for about three hours you know what you're gonna get for the rest of the game. What's the combat system, are the cutscenes and voice acting skippable---and how bad are they, that sort of thing.
But perhaps most telling? If it takes your game more than five hours to get interesting, your game sucks. Don't tell me "you need to finish the game" if the first five hours of gameplay suggest there's no reward in doing so.
I'll add to your rant and say that its a review on the game, therefore its just picking at keypoints and most of these can be deduced pretty quickly in the first hours of a game. If you want someone to sit and talk about every single inch of the game then it stops being a review and it becomes a testimonial.spartan231490 said:
Review - Light reading material to quickly emphasis key points
Relying on an epic ending to make your game considered good kind of defeats the purpose.
Anyway, I think his point is more about misinformation, rather than the literal completion of a game. Game critics really aren't held to the same journalistic standards as other media writers.
Anyway, I think his point is more about misinformation, rather than the literal completion of a game. Game critics really aren't held to the same journalistic standards as other media writers.
I disagree with this, a reveiw is an opinion and if your opinion is that the game is not wth finishing then thats that
I got far cry 2 last month and i loved it for about thirty minuits :S then it was just the same old thing over and over....if i was reveiwing i would hate to HAVE to finish that game only to say somthing i knew twenty minuits in
I got far cry 2 last month and i loved it for about thirty minuits :S then it was just the same old thing over and over....if i was reveiwing i would hate to HAVE to finish that game only to say somthing i knew twenty minuits in