Reviewers Should Finish Games, Says Zampella

[King of the Sandbox]

I always play games I review thoroughly, if not to the end.

Like Castlevania HD, all the reviews for it were made by whiny "It's too hard so I played for an hour then gave up" wimps, who act like they don't know that that's the point. Castlevania has always been hardcore. You gotta be hardcore [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.223950-WHIPCRACK-Castlevania-Harmony-of-Despair-XBLA-Review] to review it.

 

[Baldr]

My biggest problem with unfair reviews Final Fantasy 13, most of the complaints were based only off the first half the game, but I can understand as the game was over 40 hours long. Also there was a ton of bad reviews for OnLive, and yet none of the bad reviewers actually used the service, all the the good reviews came from people who actually used the service.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Though that might be true, it is better to of personally played the game at all then to do a review on the base of what everybody else has said. Those guys should be put to death...

Unlike me, who always goes through 100% of everygame I play. Honest.

<..>

...Mostly.

 

[Anezay]

The fact that they didn't finish can be part of the review. If a game is so horrible that they just can't bring themselves to continue, it is valuable information to a review.

 

[The_Puppy_Prince]

How long would it take to comeplete Oblivon Or A MMO?
Imagine that

 

[VGFreak1225]

I think it depends on how far they've gotten. If they're literally right before the final boss, then they've probably gone far enough to make a final opinion. The same could also count if they have found no urge to continue forward (especially since they're getting paid to do just that).

 

[Curly_Jefferson]

It's understandable when if the reviewer pretends they finished and makes a false comment. But if they couldn't finish due to time or something like that then they should be upfront about it so the reader knows and understands that there could be something that factors into the quality of the game that isn't in the review. Are you referring to when Yahtzee reviewed Final Fantasy? because i don't think that comment was meant to be taken literally.

I personally think reviews are a bit to detailed sometimes. generally i can play a game for about half an hour and say "well assuming it maintains this level of quality you should/shouldn't get it." People who play a lot of games a can usually hazard a guess on what a game will be like and reviews only change someone's mind if they reveal it to be surprisingly good or bad. In fact i think everyone wrote pretty accurate reviews when MW2 was first announced. Good quality fps, more of the same so if you liked the last one you'll like this one.

Of course that doesn't mean i think reviews are unnecessary, only sometimes.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

I'm not going to argue that you need to finish a game to write a review of it necessarily, though it certainly doesn't hurt, but if you haven't finished a game prior to going to press, tell us that. The problem isn't penning reviews without finishing products, it's lying about it.

 

[Flippincrazy]

Honestly, I do not see why this is in anyway true. Most game developer should know that it is the beginning of the game that should be the most spectacular, in an attempt to bring potential players further "into" the game. If they have failed at this, he/she should do what most gamers do when they can't stand to play a game, stop playing. A personal pet hate of mine is when people say, "oh but it gets good 15 hours into the game!".

Yeah sure if a reviewer did constantly play through whole games we may get a better representative for the whole game, but I think its better for him/her to try and emmulate what a gamer would do in his/her situation. Normally I would give a game five hours to pull me in and start to entertain me, I think this would be a fair enough time period for a reviewer to play the game...

 

[King of the Sandbox]

I'm not going to argue that you need to finish a game to write a review of it necessarily, though it certainly doesn't hurt, but if you haven't finished a game prior to going to press, tell us that. The problem isn't penning reviews without finishing products, it's lying about it.

Agreed. I don't think you should fear telling people you couldn't finish the game due to time constraints, skill or whatever. It makes you more human and relatable to the reader. Lying, however, makes you sound like a douche that no one will make the mistake of taking seriously ever again.

 

[noncon]

I review over fifty games a year, and many of them are jRPGs. jRPGs are usually twenty hours long minimum. I try to finish most of them, even if I don't like them. However, when I quit a game, I have a reason for it. If your game is a nigh unplayable mess, don't blame me for not talking about the one good moment thirty hours in where it was temporarily not awful. I've played through some pretty awful games. If there was something bad enough to make me give up on a game, then, so long as I make sure to tell the readers that I did quit the game and why I did, I've done my job. If I can't put up with something, I have no reason to assume my audience will want to.

 

[CheckD3]

I think it depends on the reviewer and their experience. As yahtzee says in his FFXIII review, he could have and should have tried more than 5 hours, but he didn't want to. He admitted that down the line it could have been fun, but if a game doesn't draw you in during the beginning, than it's a fair assessment to not like it and review what you did.

Certain games, like FO, are a diff. story for sure, where as finishing the game would take a lot of time to go through, so pounding through it to the end wouldn't give you a full experience. However, taking your time would end up taking too long and the review get old and stale. I agree that games should be tried to beaten, linear games the example. But sandbox games and MMOs are to get the most of the experience and even if you don't be a game, the experience alone is worth it. MW2 is a game that should be finished for the review, WoW, FO3, those you can probably log 10 hours in and enjoy just that.

 

[duchaked]

100%ing some games might be a bit much...okay way too much lol in some cases
but ya, at least reach the credits or w/e

 

[Seventh Actuality]

Games should make reviewers want to complete them. If a reviewer doesn't want to do it for his job, why should people pay to do it in the leisure time?

 

[mrdude2010]

I agree/disagree. I think that it's fine to write a review on a game even if we haven't finished it but I think you should make that fact clear from the get go. I have yet to play (and probably will never play) FF13 because it sounds to me as though it takes a solid 20 hours to get good. I think games should be good from the get go (not having to invest a ridiculous amount of time to get to the good part), but the fact is that apparently it DOES get better. The vast majority of reviews claim that it really picks up 20 hours in so in this sense, yes, the reviewer should finish the game to give it a final rating. But if he didn't finish it then at least let the reader know just in case it does get better.

i will never play this game because there is no justification for playing through 20 hours of utter BS before a game gets mildly entertaining.... how the hell can "it gets good after 20 hours" EVER be a valid excuse?

 

[Motiv_]

I, for one, disagree with this statement. I say that a reviewer should play for a minimum of at least 5-10 hours or so, and if he feels compelled to do so, then finish the game. Because, while a game might massively improve towards the end of it's adventure, I don't want to sit through 5 hours of shit to get to the "Good" 2 hours or so at the ending. If a reviewer plays for 5 hours and still isn't having fun, then it's not a good game. There are exceptions to this rule, of course, such as MMOs that often require you to be a higher level to get better stuff, so forth and so on, but in general, saying that "A game gets better after about 10 hours or so" doesn't cut it in my book when I have games that offer much quicker routes to entertainment.

 

[Krion_Vark]

*SNIP*

The thing is the average game I can beat in 1-3 days. A good game 5-7. Then there are games that just engulf me in them like assassin's creed 2 I finished in 2 days and almost 24 hours of game play.

 

[Autofaux]

Ya, I personally agree. I usually wait till I finish a game or know it in and out enough before I ever review it on here.

You can really tell when someone hasn't played the whole thing and makes up false statements like the tutorial being 10 hours long *cough*Yahtzee*cough* ...

You are right, it's not 10 hours. It was closer to 20, which is worse.

OT: Zampella is the last one who should be commenting on finishing a game. MW2 wasn't finished, it had an unforgivable amount of bugs and in spite of patching, still has them almost a year after release.

And there are some games that can't be finished, or are simply too long. And it doesn't take too long to get a feel for the game, the mechanics, the multiplayer and so on. I highly doubt the experience would be *vastly* different if they played for 11 hours instead of 10.

 

[phoenix_tetsu]

I completely agree. If a movie critic put out a review that said, "'Dinner for Schmucks' was the worst movie this year. I only saw the first ten minutes, but I could tell.", they'd never be taken seriously in their industry again. Why should game reviewers be any different?

Maybe if the movie was directed by Uwe Boll or the game Over the Ridge Racing?

 

[Warlockofaus]

If Devs want honest reviews, perhaps they could ask their publishers to stop paying for good scores?

(Thinking of PC Gamer's score for Hellgate:London here, though it's just one of many examples).