Reviewers Should Finish Games, Says Zampella

[Gindil]

See, I agree with this almost whole heartedly.

Basically, the gaming trick is to put everything in your first 1-2 hours of your game. It's the time that the player is learning a game. But usually after this time, the game seems to fall flat (I'm looking at YOU FFX! WE STILL DON'T SEE EYE TO EYE!) because everything becomes a sidequest for additional pylons, there's less diversity (main plot = everything thrown at it before the end) or it's a hook for the next game (HALO (&%&^%$ TWO >_<)

So yeah, some games may be great but it's only so they can look good for the camera of a reviewer. I wish there were a way that we could have less reviews but better quality, similar to Escapists system of actually, ya know, playing a game for a good amount instead of the 30 day frame that the rest of the reviewing world seems to love.

 

[MatsVS]

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.

This is a widely held misconception. See, the same point also holds true (perhaps doubly so) for book-reviews. I remember the steady stream of reviews that trickled out of blogosphere after Neal Stephenson's 'Anathem' was released about two years ago. Many reviewers lamented it's great length and dense nature, yet nearly every single serious reviewer finished it, even if it took them weeks. And those few who didn't, or couldn't, and reviewed it still, were scorned and subsequently ignored. As it ought to be.

After all, how anyone debate a work's narrative, structure or pacing, unless they experience said work as a whole? When faux-reviewers such as Yathzee and his ilk proclaim 'I don't have to finish the game, because it isn't fun!', then, well, it's only giving credence to the Eberts out there, that games aren't art. In art, you give something, and you get it back many times over. The game asks of you time, understanding and dedication, and rewards you accordingly. The reward doesn't even have to be 'fun' in the regular sense. There are many deeper rewards to be reaped, for those who know where to look. Is it always a fair exchange? That's for the individual gamers and reviewers to decided, but NO ONE can speak about it with any authority lest they've FINISHED THE GAME.

 

[Christemo]

It's not like they have an excuse. They can't say Modern Warfare 2 was simply far too long to finish in time for a write-up, considering the thing is about 4 hours long.

agreed 100%

 

[heyheysg]

Books are longer than games, yet reviewers have to finish the book before they review it.

Reviews simply for the sake of appearing first is just to get hits or web traffic and nothing to do with criticisms.

Maybe a dual review, a 'quick' 10 hour review and a 'full' review a couple months down. In the end it depends on what you want to get from a review.

 

[SailorShale]

This times a million. You should either beat the game, or be a large way through. That annoys me to pieces when a reviewer reviews a game based on 20 minutes because "the game was so bad they couldn't make it" Awww, boohoo. That's the point of reviewing, you do both the good and the bad.

 

[Forgetitnow344]

What if the game is Final Fantasy XIII? Even the game's fans will admit that it takes a good deal of playing time (something like 13 hours) to reach the part of the game that is fun. I can understand starting out slow, but if I can finish a season of Dexter in the time it takes for a video game to start being fun, the game is not good. I personally gave up on FF13 about four hours in, and I wouldn't blame any reviewer for doing the same.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

BTW: Yahtzee doesn't count. He's not a reviewer. He's a comedian.

Generally speaking, it's funny because it's true. Of course, belittling his opinion by implying that he just rips on things for laughs is just another example of fans telling someone how they should do their job.

 

[Wandrecanada]

I think the problem this "finish the game" brings out is what the definition of finished means. Does it mean just the single player? In class based RPGs does it mean just one class? What about multiple story endings? How could you rate MMOs?

The OP is certainly right about the spirit of the argument though. Reviewers should indeed fully investigate a game before putting up a review even if they don't want to. Objectivity is required for an informed decision and you can't be objective if you've missed content. I think what frustrates most in a review comes from obvious gaps in knowledge that anyone who's played the game knows is fallacy. For game creators it must tear them up and I can acknowledge that from Zampella.

 

[daftalchemist]

Or, instead of forcing someone to sit through the entirety of every game they review in their busy reviewer schedule, perhaps reviewers should just state how much time they invested in a game when they review it. This way if they only get an hour into it, we won't think the entire game is as easy as a tutorial level.

 

[Miumaru]

Todd, you sick bastard. Cant count beating the main storyline in Oblivion as completing the game. You would have to beat all the story lines, get to atleast lvl 20, and do more than just a couple of side quests.

Atleast X-Play seems to finish the games, or atleast they have said so a few times.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Reviewers should play the game with the mindset that they are going to learn how it works, very frequently I see reviews where the reviewer simply hasn't bothered to learn how the game works before trying to play it. The most recent is Alpha Protocol, where just about every reviewer complains about things which show quite obviously that they are simply not paying attention, and if they were then their complaints would dissolve because they wouldn't be trying to do what they are doing.

 

[GoGo_Boy]

I agree in some way. Especially with the suggestion of escapist at least investigating more. I'm modding a bit myself and even there people played my map and simply said completely wrong stuff because they didn't play it enough or didn't try to take a deep look at the features.

It must be really frustrating if you're a game developer and some huge ass review site with multiple thousand users reviews your game and simply tells bullshit. A lot of the audience of course does believe because there's no reason for a reviewer to lie...

I would really, really appreciate a website doing in-depths reviews where they really take their time. Actually a 5-10mins video review or 2-3 pages of a written review can't be enough to describe things in detail.
And "no time" or "no fun" is no real excuse. If you're a professional reviewer you aren't supposed to lay down the controller after 1 hour because you don't dig the game.

But whatever, in depths reviews won't really happen as money and competition scream for an early, short review. -.-

 

[Nikolaz72]

Yeah....so how DO you finish an MMO...or TF2...or The Path

Even a linear structure like Fallout 3, how long would that take? Yahtzee would be down to one game every two months.

I would take my guess at focusing on the campaign and then preparing a flameshield for not doing the sidemissions.

 

[Nikolaz72]

Question: what if you can't beat the game? What if the game is so glitchy, so unplayable, you are unable to even finish it? what then?

Reminds me of might and magic 9.. Lines betweenpeople 3d aside. There was a dungeon than when you quit and came back you could NEVER finish it again and had to start over because it was a part of the main mission.

 

[The DSM]

If the game is boring/broken that the they dont complete it thats a bad sign, its not the reviewers fault.

I suffered this with FF 13, I got so bored at the 20 hour marks that I just stopped playing, normally I can stand grinding in RPGs but the combat was so dull and most of the game felt so fleshed out that I just didnt want to play any more.

And belive me, if I didnt want to finish it just for achievements, thasts a very bad sign.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Because reviewers have all the time in the world to finish a game?

Finishing the game isn't really relevant. It's quite possible to "finish" many games without gaining a real understanding of the systems at work. Reviewers should endeavour to understand games, figure out what's going on and then decide whether the game does what it's trying to do well.

I'd link to possibly the ultimate example, IGN US's review of Football Manager 2010, where all of the criticisms of the game (which they gave 2/10, the UK site giving it 9.3) were based around the fact that the game wasn't being FIFA properly (with a throwaway line about how the management side, you know, what the game actually was, was pretty good). But they've withdrawn it in shame.

 

[GamingAwesome1]

In this regard, I think reviewers should follow Yahtzee's method of either play the game until it's over or play the game until you can't any more (if the game in question blows)

The very rare exception to rules like these are games which exceed the 10 hour mark. FF13, Fallout 3, Oblivion, or games that just lack a real "end" as such. TF2, any MMO.