I remember reading about planescape: torment and the reviewer wrote that each time you play the game must be very different. As an example he used a house where the first game he had met some guys and the second time when he entered it, the house was completely razed. That got me excited for some reason and although planescape torment may be one of the best buys I've ever made, I realized later that he mixed up two houses that were close and easy to confuse with each other. Guess what. People make mistakes.
Reviewers Should Finish Games, Says Zampella
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Recommended Videos
WOHOHOOO somebody flew off the handlebar.....whats wrong someone didn't like mw2 so you ***** bout it?.....talk about self indulgents.
One might also say if you need reviewers to play all of your game in order to get a favorable review, you're doing it wrong. Don't get me wrong, I understand the need for pacing, and the occasional surprise ending - but overall, a game is supposed to be fun. If it takes hours for the game to be enjoyable, then perhaps the developers are to blame.
Nope. I think reviewers and critics have the right to stop playing a game that they genuinely feel no attraction to.
But they should always explicitly mention such in their reviews instead of making up bogus and untrue stuff about the game, just so as to cop out and look as if they gave it a full run to their audience.
But they should always explicitly mention such in their reviews instead of making up bogus and untrue stuff about the game, just so as to cop out and look as if they gave it a full run to their audience.
Protip: There's a difference between not liking something and reviewing it poorly because you are too stupid or lazy to understand it. Many reviews show that they are the latter.ninonybox360 said:
I think in some cases, it's possible. Games like Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 are possible in terms of length (unlike other games, typically RPGs) but in terms of difficulty on a high enough difficulty to be remotely enjoyable, it's just not possible. I typically don't finish games before reviewing because I always get the feeling I've seen enough to be a good judge. However, I don't just play 50% and assume "right, now I can do it!". It's usually closer to the 75% mark in the main story mode, if one exists, and then make assumptions. After all, if it's crap for 75% of the game, chances are the 25% more will be just as crap.
Yeah, there was this one Tetris review I read.Logan Westbrook said:
It seriously happened with Lego Batman, actually. The reviwer seemed sincerely unaware that you got to play as the supervillains later on in the story.
I believe that you should keep on playing as long as you're having fun. If you're so bored after five hours of dull-as-dishwater gameplay, then you might as well stop playing, since a regular gamer would have stopped by then.
Well to be honest, you just did. I don't think there are too many people who are ready to run out and buy a game if they too would be bored 2.5 hours in. Most people wouldn't pay $10 to be bored for 90 minutes at a movie theater, so why would you expect them to be bored for 150 minutes after paying $60?Rarhnor said:
I'd think spending 8 - 10 hours with a game would usually give enough material for an in-depth review (although certain MMO's may take considerably longer to get the feel of). At any rate, if the reviewer feel that the game might have more to offer than he's had time to find, then he can simply inform in the review that it's based on X hours of play time.
While it would of course be ideal to finish a game to review the complete experience, some games cannot be finished, and others take 100+ hours to get around all the nooks and crannies in. And something like production values, gameplay, and characterization should be quite apparent by the 10 hour mark in pretty much any game. And who wants to play through 10 hours of horrific storyline, even if it becomes noticeably better in the last 10?
Overall, I think reviewers are able to form an opinion based on a reasonable amount of game time, although there maybe certain niche genres where playing through the whole thing is arguably paramount (such as Heavy Rain, due the extreme focus on storyline in that game).
While it would of course be ideal to finish a game to review the complete experience, some games cannot be finished, and others take 100+ hours to get around all the nooks and crannies in. And something like production values, gameplay, and characterization should be quite apparent by the 10 hour mark in pretty much any game. And who wants to play through 10 hours of horrific storyline, even if it becomes noticeably better in the last 10?
Overall, I think reviewers are able to form an opinion based on a reasonable amount of game time, although there maybe certain niche genres where playing through the whole thing is arguably paramount (such as Heavy Rain, due the extreme focus on storyline in that game).
So the idea here is that only after you finish a game does it actually get good? Maybe developers should put the good at the beginning of the game, then.
well, I do think that reviewers should put more time in investigating the games before tehy actually "review" it. But asking someone to play all 50+ hours of FF13, even if they've already played 30 hours(regardless of whether they liked it or despised it) is a little much. Though, I don't see why they can't play smaller games all the way through.