Isnt it common sense that you should finish something before you review it? I can understand not being able to due to time constrants or inablitly to beat it, but who just gets to the 5 hour mark of a 10 hour game and decides that it garbage?
Reviewers Should Finish Games, Says Zampella
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Is that always possible?
I mean deadlines are not something that can be delayed in print, I don't know how online works, but given the regularity with which the Escapist moves I doubt a deadline is trivial. He isn't asking for total completion, but it's not possible to give a full review of Mass Effect when you rush or leave out side mission, that's just as bad as not reaching the end.
I do agree that the effort should be made, and a full understanding of the game is ideal. But a review that comes out a week after launch isn't overly useful to anybody.
If they didn't finish the game that can be fine, but it should be made clear to the reader that the credits weren't seen or sizable content was unexplored.
I mean deadlines are not something that can be delayed in print, I don't know how online works, but given the regularity with which the Escapist moves I doubt a deadline is trivial. He isn't asking for total completion, but it's not possible to give a full review of Mass Effect when you rush or leave out side mission, that's just as bad as not reaching the end.
I do agree that the effort should be made, and a full understanding of the game is ideal. But a review that comes out a week after launch isn't overly useful to anybody.
If they didn't finish the game that can be fine, but it should be made clear to the reader that the credits weren't seen or sizable content was unexplored.
I agree exploring a whole game before making a review would be the best thing however some games are so long playing them to the end could take days and to explore these longer games, might take weeks. So for them its not practical as for shorter games yes then need to be finished and explored
I partially agree. there is nothing worse than a reviewer giving a game a great score when he hasn't finished it. however, if the game is fugging awful, and they quit and give the game a bad score i don't blame them. If a game cannot hold my attention it deserves a crappy score in my opinion, which is what reviews are: opinions.
Edit: However, i read all my reviews through magazines. it shouldn't be hard to finish any game in under a month.
Edit: However, i read all my reviews through magazines. it shouldn't be hard to finish any game in under a month.
When movies start becoming 20-40 hours long then your argument will be come valid, but up until that point you've made a moot point.Space Spoons said:
I don't agree. He's saying that a gamer cannot pass judgement on a game until having finished it. That's simply not true. No ending is able to save a game plagued with fundamental problems or inadequacies. A reviewer needs to have experienced the essentiall elements but not the whole thing.
Well, I think he is true, but every reviewer must have his limits. He or she should not play 40 hours of Dragon Age to get the total experience. I doubt he or she has the time. He or she has other games to play. He or she has a life. Plus, if a game is a disaster, he or she should not punish his or herself trying to finish it. If a game is too crappy to finish, that shows that the game is not good. No one sequence or level would change that.
I was just thinking the exact same thing the other day.
It pisses me off when I watch or read a review for a game, where I can just tell the reviewer hasn't completed a game.
It pisses me off when I watch or read a review for a game, where I can just tell the reviewer hasn't completed a game.
If I'm playing a plot heavy game like Heavy Rain or Indigo Prophecy, then yeah, I'd suggest they finish it to get a true idea of the story and be able to judge it better.
If I'm playing Call of Duty or Halo or Fable 2 or Oblivion, I shouldn't need to finish it to get an understanding of the core game mechanics and an understanding of the main storyline. Those games don't change much over time and plot hole aren't going to be mentioned in the review for the sake of the player.
If a game can't hook me in the first couple hours, then I would put it down. Its not worth playing if its excuse is "I get better toward the end."
If I'm playing Call of Duty or Halo or Fable 2 or Oblivion, I shouldn't need to finish it to get an understanding of the core game mechanics and an understanding of the main storyline. Those games don't change much over time and plot hole aren't going to be mentioned in the review for the sake of the player.
If a game can't hook me in the first couple hours, then I would put it down. Its not worth playing if its excuse is "I get better toward the end."
Good point. I'd barely gotten comfortable, and I'd already beaten MW2's single player.FargoDog said:
If I ever review games for living at any point in time, I do plan on playing them all the way through, there's deadlines and then there's giving people an informed opinion.
You know, just for shits and giggles reviewers should do exactly what he's saying. The only caveat being that if the game has multiplayer, that can't be reviewed since you can't beat so only the single player aspect can be reviewed.
What would IW's games be rated if you only took the single player campaign (which can be beat) into consideration? Would they get above a 6? Would this guy then have the noteriety to say this kind of stuff with any weight at all?
Honestly, I wish they would do that, since I never play multiplayer. Or at least give a score for the single player and then a score for multiplayer so you don't get stuck with a game with a shitty single player campaign but a robust MP you'll never use.
What would IW's games be rated if you only took the single player campaign (which can be beat) into consideration? Would they get above a 6? Would this guy then have the noteriety to say this kind of stuff with any weight at all?
Honestly, I wish they would do that, since I never play multiplayer. Or at least give a score for the single player and then a score for multiplayer so you don't get stuck with a game with a shitty single player campaign but a robust MP you'll never use.
I agree with the "Fully Investigate" idea. Ideally, the developers would actually release a list of features, breaking the game down into its component mechanics, and let only reviewers to see it, allowing them to play everything that is required to give an informed analysis, without having to take forever doing it. I mean, take one of the ever popular Bethesda RPGs. Look at hour 10 and hour 110- although fun and engaging, you aren't really *doing* much that is different or that requires further investigation, merely gaining power. Minor things will change as the game wears on, but as long as you've seen every major mechanic, that shouldn't matter.
I think it's fair in most cases to ask the reviwer to have actually finished the game. I realise some are much too big to properly explore (Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3) or may not be "completable" (TF2, Counter Strike Source), but otherwise there's no excuse...
Some people mentioned time constraints, like Yahtzee's rather awkward position. But he does usually mention when he didn't finish the game. And really, if I didn't have to go to school or study etc. I can't think of many games I couldn't finish in a few days...
So really, if they don't finish the game, either cause they're really bored or cause they ran out of time, mention it, and only review what you played, don't make guesses.
Some people mentioned time constraints, like Yahtzee's rather awkward position. But he does usually mention when he didn't finish the game. And really, if I didn't have to go to school or study etc. I can't think of many games I couldn't finish in a few days...
So really, if they don't finish the game, either cause they're really bored or cause they ran out of time, mention it, and only review what you played, don't make guesses.
I'd point out that most people who play games rarely finish them, or chase down every achievement. Like it or not, not every game manages to keep the people playing interested enough in order to finish it. I think most gamers will talk about having huge piles of unfinished games.
Especially with their schedule and professional requirements, reviewers can't be expected to play every through to completion in paticular. However they can be expected to put enough time in to form a fair opinion. Truthfully I think a few hours is frequently enough time to get a fair impression from a game. Especially seeing like writing novels, if the people are doing their job well there should be something of a hook to get people interested and keep them there even through slower points of development.
If a game reviewer can't get a fair impression of a game in a dozen hours or so that they are probably going to be putting in, then I think that this is in of itself a problem with the games.
What's more I think genere has a lot to do with it. Having a critic like Yahtzee review an RTS or RPG when he hates those generes and everything about them, and considers a lot of things that people who like those generes to be consider virtues to be an anethma, is counter productive... he can't tell you if something is a good RTS or RPG based on his hatred of the generes and their conventions. The same could be said of reviewers who hate shooters or fighting games or whatever and find then equally banal. It is also noteworthy that a long, epic, slow-burn RPG is going to take longer to review even if not finished than a shooter that has a 4 hour single player campaign and relies on "multiplayer" to justify it's existance. Of course in such cases it's impossible to fairly review a game like that because how a "controlled" enviroment of multiplayer only being experimented with by reviewers and the like before release, there is no way to tell how it will work with the community at large... the "human factor" able to destroy many concepts that work well on paper or in testing.
Of course at the same time I am a bit wary of game developers having any more influance over reviewers than they do now. As it is I've already heard of them requesting specific types of reviewers for their products and so on. Not to mention the whole Gerstmann thing and what that said about the way advertising money is influancing the impartial nature of reviews. On some levels I have an instinctive reaction to want to scream "no" to any request made by developers here no matter how reasonable seeming.
I'll also be honest in saying that I have also been becoming a lot more jaded as far as games go. Simply put I think the gaming industry has gotten more and more deceptive about marketing games, where once I could understanding "holding the cards close to their chest" to some extent, more and more frequently it seems that we're not seeing much accurate gameplay footage until games are released, and crucial features are being removed without that becoming general knowlege. To put things into perspective despite all the MMORPG burns of the last few years, the general populance has very little knowlege of what "DC Universe Online" is actually like, all we really know is that they can make a decent looking (if stereotypical) 5-6 minute cartoon. The reviewers have already been somewhat compromised, and honestly as game consumers they are increasingly becoming the only thing we have left for game information before actually handing over money to try it ourselves.
Especially with their schedule and professional requirements, reviewers can't be expected to play every through to completion in paticular. However they can be expected to put enough time in to form a fair opinion. Truthfully I think a few hours is frequently enough time to get a fair impression from a game. Especially seeing like writing novels, if the people are doing their job well there should be something of a hook to get people interested and keep them there even through slower points of development.
If a game reviewer can't get a fair impression of a game in a dozen hours or so that they are probably going to be putting in, then I think that this is in of itself a problem with the games.
What's more I think genere has a lot to do with it. Having a critic like Yahtzee review an RTS or RPG when he hates those generes and everything about them, and considers a lot of things that people who like those generes to be consider virtues to be an anethma, is counter productive... he can't tell you if something is a good RTS or RPG based on his hatred of the generes and their conventions. The same could be said of reviewers who hate shooters or fighting games or whatever and find then equally banal. It is also noteworthy that a long, epic, slow-burn RPG is going to take longer to review even if not finished than a shooter that has a 4 hour single player campaign and relies on "multiplayer" to justify it's existance. Of course in such cases it's impossible to fairly review a game like that because how a "controlled" enviroment of multiplayer only being experimented with by reviewers and the like before release, there is no way to tell how it will work with the community at large... the "human factor" able to destroy many concepts that work well on paper or in testing.
Of course at the same time I am a bit wary of game developers having any more influance over reviewers than they do now. As it is I've already heard of them requesting specific types of reviewers for their products and so on. Not to mention the whole Gerstmann thing and what that said about the way advertising money is influancing the impartial nature of reviews. On some levels I have an instinctive reaction to want to scream "no" to any request made by developers here no matter how reasonable seeming.
I'll also be honest in saying that I have also been becoming a lot more jaded as far as games go. Simply put I think the gaming industry has gotten more and more deceptive about marketing games, where once I could understanding "holding the cards close to their chest" to some extent, more and more frequently it seems that we're not seeing much accurate gameplay footage until games are released, and crucial features are being removed without that becoming general knowlege. To put things into perspective despite all the MMORPG burns of the last few years, the general populance has very little knowlege of what "DC Universe Online" is actually like, all we really know is that they can make a decent looking (if stereotypical) 5-6 minute cartoon. The reviewers have already been somewhat compromised, and honestly as game consumers they are increasingly becoming the only thing we have left for game information before actually handing over money to try it ourselves.
I expect reviewers of music to listen to the entire album, movie critics to finish the movie and yes game critics to at least finish the game.
I understand that it says a lot when someone says they couldn't even finish it but seriously it's your job, that just smacks of half assed work ethic. I'm not saying the review the game would even change that much but I would expect that if you're going to give an opinion (and be paid for it) you would at least complete it.
I watched twilight for just this reason, you have no right to critique something if you haven't seen/heard/played it.
I understand that it says a lot when someone says they couldn't even finish it but seriously it's your job, that just smacks of half assed work ethic. I'm not saying the review the game would even change that much but I would expect that if you're going to give an opinion (and be paid for it) you would at least complete it.
I watched twilight for just this reason, you have no right to critique something if you haven't seen/heard/played it.