Should Reviewers Beat Games To Review Them?

[Mexen]

If you have had the opportunity (and courage!) to traverse the Death Stranding Review Thread, then you might be aware of one topic that has returned- should reviewers beat games prior to posting their reviews?

The long and short of it is that SONY requires every reviewer to finish Death Stranding before publishing their thoughts. Of course, not everyone with a review copy has finished the game, meaning that they have not posted their reviews yet.

This led to some discussion in the review thread regarding how much of the game should be played to warrant a review. There are many arguments for and against beating a game before reviewing it; but I will only list some of the more obvious ones.

For
- Beating a game gives you a complete opinion on everything it has to offer
- Late game surprises could dramatically change your opinion on a game

Against
- A significant investment in the game is enough to form an overall impression of the entire game
- Game length and number of other games to review could hinder completion

To encourage discussion, the poll has been oversimplified to evoke more thoughtful posts. So there are no "middle grounds" in the options themselves. Whatever reasons you have, they should outweigh one response or the other. I think this is more interesting than having "depends on the game" type of options. Don't you agree? Simple yes or no. Let's go!

Here is the original post and following that, some responses.

What are we saying then, should reviewers finish games before sharing their opinion ; or is it fine to form one having partially completed a game?
Some say you can score movies or music high or low by watching 30 minutes or listening to 5 songs. The argument being that if a third of the content hasn't gripped you yet, you won't be emotionally invested to see through the rest.
Counter argument is that you can only give a full, well formed opinion if you go the distance. In rare cases, you might change your mind, otherwise your initial impressions are solidified, whether good or bad.
So we have DS that insists reviewers beat to review and we have some reviewers who have already hinted that their minds are already made up regarding how they feel about the game.

If you knew reviewers didn't beat games they were reviewing, if they declared it in their reviews... Would you still read, watch or listen?

Click to shrink...

I honestly don't care.
"yeah after 20 hours of being bored to death I can't bring myself to complete the game"
Or
"After 20 hours I still haven't finished but these are my impressions"

are valid reviews. The whole point of reviews is to encompass a wide array of people with different tastes, interests, and outlooks. Not everything will appeal to everyone.

Click to shrink...

I'm fairly certain that I read that in order to receive an early review copy, reviewers were required to agree to finish the game and not to reveal certain plot points in their reviews. Review copies always have caveats afaik.

I mean, just don't agree to things that you're not willing to do?

Click to shrink...

If you can't even finish a 70-min album or a two-hour movie, then no, don't review it.
If a game is 90 hours long and you played 30 hours, yes, you can review it.

A film exec will decide within three pages if a script isn't good enough to be made, sometimes even just a single page, just like a music producer can tell with one or two songs whether a singer has potential or not. But if an artist put out a product and your job is to review it, you have to experience as much of it as possible within the time that is allotted to you. No reviewer finished Ring Fit Adventure because it's meant to last you three months with daily 30-min sessions, and there's no way Nintendo will send you a review copy three months early and expect you to exercise with their game for 30 minutes every single day on top of all the other shit you have to do. Same goes for RPGs that last over 100 hours. But yeah if your game is five hours long, you should expect the reviewer to finish it.

Click to shrink...

I'm of the opinion that you have to go through the whole thing. I watched the horror film lights out (which isn't that great) on a plane so i had nothing better to do than to sit through the whole thing. I absolutely hated the film the whole time but there was a moment at the ending that mostly redeemed it (it went from a 1/10 to a 6/10). obviously it's not going to happen every time but i feel that if you need to give something a real chance and see it through.

i guess i also didn't like botw for my first 10 hours (and i dropped it for a full year) but then I got back to it and liked it overall.

Click to shrink...

This should be a thread with a poll tbh.

Would be interesting.

Click to shrink...

Of course Reviewers should finish the game and have time to digest it before putting any reviews... it's common sense.

Click to shrink...

 

[Le Dude]

It's so hard to say. Reviewers only have so much time and not every game has a point where it gets better or worse.

It's something that really needs to be taken on a game-by-game basis.

EDIT: It's also worth noting that with GAAS games coming out, you already have games that are being reviewed before being "finished". I would venture to say that most multiplayer games improve significantly the first year or so after launch. Splatoon is a perfect example.

 

[Strings]

I honestly can't believe this is even a question. Yes, you should absolutely finish the thing before reviewing it. You can have an opinion on it before that - but that's not a review, just an impression, and the two are different things.

 

[Knight in Shining Armani]

You can review a game based on what you've played. You just need to state it. People will dismiss a review for any reason if it doesn't fit their agenda eventhough they themselves haven't even played a minute of said game.

 

[Deleted member 10737]

if it's super long, no.
if it's so bad they couldn't be bothered to finish it, no.
otherwise, maybe?
as long as they clearly state in the review if they finished it or not, it's fair game.

 

[Yata]

Yes, if the game is too awful or long or whatever you can review a game, but it should be noted down in the review. I believe endings are critical. Especially in story-heavy games.

 

[Yossarian]

Alrighty then.

 

[Enrico Pallazzo]

Yes, definitely.

 

[lvl 99 Pixel]

I think its in their best interests when its their job.

 

[formasymphonic]

Unless a game a broken then yes I believe it should be finished before it is reviewed. Not necessarily 100% checklist completion / achievement completion but the reviewer should have gone from start sequence to end credits to give it a fair shake.

Otherwise to me it's the same as if they only watched part of a film, or a few episodes of a series — that's not a review it's a preview.

 

[ZeroX]

No. We've had this thread before. As long as they reviewer stated how much they played, it's fine.

It needs to be pointed out again that most people don't actually beat games. They're not like movies. Most TV pre-release reviews aren't the full season, even if it's streaming and they'd all be available.

 

[Interested Observer]

I have no problem with a reviewer not beating a game as long as they've played enough to get a good impression of all the gameplay mechanics.

 

[Deleted member 10737]

In many respects, it is much harder to make a murder look like suicide today than, say, thirty years ago. Back then, you could choke them, hang them from the rafters, write a note with your off hand, and consider it job done. Police didn't check for rope burn, compare handwriting, etc.

If it looked good, and there were no signs of struggle, you could make a decent living out of manufacturing suicides.

Click to shrink...

...what?

 

[DarkFlame92]

yes,because they are professional. It's your job

 

[Miller]

I think there's something to reviews written by those who haven't finished a game, but they're never upfront about it. I remember GameXplain's review of Yo-kai Watch ranting about back-tracking without mentioning anything about the warp shortcuts introduced halfway through the story, because they hadn't gotten there yet. I mean, imagine doing the same thing to a Pokemon game before you got the ability to fly. It shapes the conversation surrounding a game to say, "Game is _______", so when that's not completely true, it can tarnish a game's reputation. I mean, how can you judge the story of a game if you haven't finished it, for example. But instead of saying, "This review was written while I was in chapter 6", reviewers tend to just stretch the truth, speak authoritatively, and make assumptions.

Obviously, there are many reasons for this. Games are very time-consuming to play through, and that can make it difficult to churn out content at a reasonable pace. It might also be that one's work schedule simply doesn't allow them to play through a game in the schedule that they are given by their employer, and they gotta eat.

I just wish there was more transparency.

But if reviewers were to be transparent about this, it would put in to question the validity of the review when weighed against other reviews on resources like metacritic and opencritic. And I can imagine larger publications not liking that.

 

[Kapryov]

The question really does fall into the middle ground, so the poll is kinda useless in that way. I did vote "yes" though.

Ultimately a review that says they couldn't finish the game is a valid review - a condemning one - but holds little weight compared to a review from someone that actually put the time into reaching the finish line.
Even if the game is a slog, I'm counting on the professional (as in, the person that is payed to do it, their profession) to play through to the end to tell me if it's worth it. If they don't, then the review is null to me and I will look to somebody else.

I could say that Star Ocean IV is rubbish as I never finished it, but I don't really know what happens after that character joins the party, so I've written it off. I don't think it's a truly awful game because I haven't a full opinion of it, though I can say it certainly has some of the worst characters and cutscenes I've ever experienced in my short time with it.

 

[Deleted member 29682]

By finish do we mean "Complete the game's closest equivalent of a linear single-player narrative" or "Experience every single part of the game's content, even if it's optional or hidden (i.e. 100% completion)"? Because the latter may be more informative but would represent a significantly larger time investment for not much gain. For example, a reviewer who plays through a game on all available difficulty settings would be well placed to discuss the difficulty balance of each setting, but nobody actually expects them to do this for a 50+ hour game.

Basically, what's the line in the sand for what is/isn't completion?

 

[silva1991]

Absolutely. If you don't beat it then just do a preview.

I think someone mentioned that EDGE reviewer didn't finish the game and he'll just do a preview and that's the right thing.

 

[MoogleWizard]

Yes? Would you care about a reviewer's opinion when they write a review after watching half a film, reading half a book or listening to only 4 tracks of a 10 track album?

 

[s0l0kill]

Yes. They literally have one job.

 

[Sky87]

If a game is so boring or bad that they'll have to drop it after 10 hours, they should be able to score it I think. I can't remember this being an issue until Death Stranding though, so the game has to be extraordinarily bad for someone to be unable to finish it.

After all, reviews are opinions and people should be allowed to score it as they want without fearing any consequences over it.

Instead of giving it a score though, just give it a ''do not buy'' instead and update it whenever you actually do finish it (or someone else takes over the review for you).

 

[ReginaldXIV]

I voted no, but it really depends on the game. Like that IGN review of the RE2 remake before the edit was embarrassing. I think most games can be critiqued fully without the need of a full completion though.

 

[Xando]

In a time where almost every game is 30-40 hours or more finishing every game is a pipe dream.

If a game is shit after 10 hours it will be after 40 hours

 

[Acquiescence]

If it's your job to review a game then you should complete it before doing so. Unless the game is fundamentally broken.

 

[Deleted member 29682]

Absolutely. If you don't beat it then just do a preview.

I think someone mentioned that EDGE reviewer didn't finish the game and he'll just do a preview and that's the right thing.

Click to shrink...

I mean the preview will likely just end up being a review without a score. I don't think there's a requirement that a preview be entirely objective.

 

[Angie]

Thing with games is that it only takes it ending on few good hours to shape your final verdict. A game like TLG would not get 85MC if not for the ending. Which often is what people remenber and talk about.

But if a reviewer feels is not worth their tiem to finish the game and still wants to review it, then all they have to do is state in the review that they did not finished and why.

 

[aerie]

I think it really depends on the game, but they should, and I'm sure in the vast, vast, majority of cases do, have a fairly complete understanding of what the game attempts to offer and do. You don't always need to see the credits roll to see and review that.

Yes? Would you care about a reviewer's opinion when they write a review after watching half a film, reading half a book or listening to only 4 tracks of a 10 track album?

Click to shrink...

This isn't a very good analogy. Not all mediums are the same. If they were critiquing just the story, then that would be different.

 

[Selphie]

For a review yeah, I think you should beat a game. If you don't finish it you can always write down your impressions, but don't call that a review.

 

[Ojli]

If the game is boring, no need to finish it. But if it's madated that you feel it's boring, just finish it, judge it on the gameplay and whatnot and then finally subtract 5 points from the final score. So if you find The Witcher 3 tedious, play it all, give it a 4 and everyone will be happy /s

A second discussion would be if reviewers should only play a game through normal settings (as that is the creators intent). Is a playthrough on super-easy as valid as a playthrough on hard?

 

[Zolbrod]

No, and the idea that they should is fucking ridiculous.

What I DO think every reviewer should do is be upfront about how much they played. Kotaku does this, as well as some other reviewers, and it's really all that should be required.
There's no reason to finish a 50 hour game if the first 30 hours are boring. Nothing that happens after that can make it a good game.

 

[Trisc]

After having played a game for 20-25 or so hours, I'm pretty sure I've got a good idea of what it's got to offer. Unless there's a particularly egregious offense the game has towards the end that completely spits in the face of what the rest of the game stands for, it's a pretty safe bet that after playing the game for over two dozen hours, you'll have played and experienced more than the average player of the same game will.

 

[Deleted member 426]

Yes, I don't think they need to 100% or do side content if they're not feeling it, but beating the main story in a single player game should be the bare minimum requirement. Problem is not individual reviewers not being bothered to review the games, but the obsessions with day -0 review drop deadlines. I feel like that impacts not only how much reviewers know about the game, but forces them to play games in a certain way which doesn't always a) reflect how some games should be played and b) reflect how the audience would actually play the game.

 

[ThereAreFourNaan]

It's ok to review a game you didn't reach the end of the story with, yes, as long as you mention this in the review. The only times it wouldn't be ok is if you misrepresented yourself as having beaten it, or if you genuinely didn't put enough time in to get to grips with what the game was.

I would say that the opinion of someone who saw most of a game and didn't finish it because they hated it is a lot more useful than someone who played on super easy and beelined the main quest to rush a deadline. Not that this isn't valid either, just that I think it's a very specific experience that will differ from what most people will have and would be worth flagging in the text for the same reason not finishing the game would.

 

[HellofaMouse]

imagine reviewing spec ops the line after only playing the first half of the game. how colossal of a fck up that would be

 

[Arkestry]

There's multiple factors at play here, but the primary of them is that a game is an experience, and you can form a complete impression of that experience without seeing the 'end' of the game. But things to bear in mind:

• If a game is bad in the first few hours, it doesn't matter how 'good' it gets, it's still bad in the first few hours. Everyone has to play those, so the review needs to take those far more into account. If it's bad for 75% of the game, and then suddenly gets good, that's irrelevant unless the game is 15 minutes long. A reviewer does not have to finish this game to review it.
• Freelancers are not paid for game time, like, at all. If you ask someone to review a game that takes 80+ hours to 'finish', and they're getting paid (at fucking best) like $200 for that game review, then you're basically asking them to work far below minimum wage.
• Most people never finish games, so if you're looking for a product review, which seems to be the majority of games reviews, then its representative to review the first 10 or so hours and nothing more.

 

[Eumi]

Absolutely.

People like to say you don't need to beat a game to have an opinion on it. That is true. But a review isn't an opinion, it's more of a product. It's being made primarily for profit.

In all honesty, reviewers should have to go beyond just beating a game. They should explore different difficulties, game modes, play styles. Game reviews should be thorough, but since doing that probably wouldn't make more money, they won't. All you need is to get something out at the embargo and you'll make the ad revenue. Unless that changes, reviews won't improve.

 

[Mexen]

By finish do we mean "Complete the game's closest equivalent of a linear single-player narrative" or "Experience every single part of the game's content, even if it's optional or hidden (i.e. 100% completion)"? Because the latter may be more informative but would represent a significantly larger time investment for not much gain. For example, a reviewer who plays through a game on all available difficulty settings would be well placed to discuss the difficulty balance of each setting, but nobody actually expects them to do this for a 50+ hour game.

Basically, what's the line in the sand for what is/isn't completion?

Click to shrink...

Since we have not reached a point where 100% completion is a must for all standard reviews, beating a game in this context means completing the critical path or what we know as the "main story" regardless of how much of the side quests have been completed.

 

[Deleted member 1726]

Of course they should.

if they can't then score it appropriately and explain why you didn't want to even finish it, that would make sense to me and would be quite honest.

 

[Dusk Golem]

My thought is there's some case-by-case basis for this, but generally yes, yes they should.

I wouldn't trust a movie review or a book review from someone who didn't finish the movie or book, or hell, a board game review from someone who didn't finish the board game before, or a chess review from someone who never finished a chess match. Why would I particularly value a partial review of the experience?

 

[gremlinz1982]

They ought to finish the game before posting a review, that is what they are paid for and this is why they keep getting games before they release. I have however also played some games that I could not be bothered to continue after two or three hours just based on how bad and/or repetitive the gameplay loop was, so I can somewhat understand some reviewers not bothering.

That said, there really shouldn't have to be a late game surprise to change an opinion of a game. A game can start out slow as someone learns the mechanics and control scheme, then beef up those mechanics. I cannot imagine that there is much that will change in a game that is 40 hours long if you have logged half that time on it.

When it comes to Death Stranding, there was always going to be an issue with a game centered around UPS/FEDEX. I honestly cannot imagine that people would be happy if this was being made by a lesser developer regardless of how good the story was.

 

[Magic]

Should only be extreme circumstances where they don't finish them, for example a game breaking bug.

Reviewing games is a job, especially for the main media outlets. In no other career can you use the whole 'too much workload So I didn't finish the game' as an excuse, it's you're job to get it finished.

My only sympathy would come with independents doing reviews, or people doing it as a hobby. In this case it should be made crystal clear that they didn't actually finish the game.

I can't even believe this is a debate to be honest, sometimes in a job you've got to do what isn't enjoyable..

 

[realSentientStone]

Depends on the game, if it is a game game that is only about the gameplay then no. If it is a game that relies on narrative then yes.

 

[Astraea]

I personally don't care if they see the credits of the game or not. All I care about in a review is the gameplay, and one doesn't have to finish the game to do a write up of the gameplay mechanics. I just want to know if anything is broken or poorly designed.

 

[Shopolic]

Yes, I think reviewers should beat games and watch the whole movie to say about it and more important, give score for it.
If they get money for it, it's their job. It's like a doctor who don't like a patient, but he should do his work until the end.

 

[Deleted member 29682]

Since we have not reached a point where 100% completion is a must for all standard reviews, beating a game in this context means completing the critical path or what we know as the "main story" regardless of how much of the side quests have been completed.

Click to shrink...

So the issue for me then becomes: if you have a reviewer who mainlines the game without engaging in the side content and another who only makes it partway through the game but has thoroughly explored a wide variety of the content the game offers, whose opinion is more valuable to me? If I'm going into the game for the story, then I might be inclined to lean towards the mainlined review, whereas if I don't care about the story and and looking for something with good side-content and gameplay, the methodical but unfinished review might be more helpful. I don't think there's necessarily a right answer there, as long as the latter is up front about having not finished it.

 

[sweetmini]

Games are highly technical pieces... If the game print has issues in the last third that makes its performance drop sharply or stability be destroyed then it should be in the review. If there's a game breaking bug preventing the completion of the game, it should be in.

One non-story game light, because these also should be subject to proper time invested for review :
It's like nobody reviewed City Skylines on switch fully, since at release if your city creeped too big, then the game crashed every minute (or less ) on switch. That was a pretty substantial issue and flew under the radar because reviewers didn't care enough to make a full city ... so we know reviewers city did not exceed 100K citizens. This is not a story game, but if you don't have your city on all build-able blocks then you cannot see the core issue. There were cheats embedded in the game to have enough money to build it and speed up toggles... it would have taken 5 to 7 hours to see the issue. They did not invest the 5 to 7 hours.

 

[Linus815]

yes, but failing that (if a game is extremely long, or the reviewer finds no redeeming qualities in it) the rough play time should be highlighted in the review.

 

[Hate]

It's their fucking job.

 

[Zaubrer]

i would think if you write good enough it is hard enough to prove that you played the game.

regardless, i do not think that reviewers need to complete a game to give a verdict. After all a review isa highly subjective piece of text and one can certainly have a strong opinion if they haven't completed a game. Especially in those cases it may be interesting to see why they didn't complete it (if it wasn't for time/cost restraints).

 

[Mezati99]

imagine if i walk up to my boss and tell him "nah i ain't doing any more of that shit"