Should Reviewers Beat Games To Review Them?

[Fredrik]

Good, please don't.
It's called a review, not an impression.

You can't review The Hobbit with only 150 pages read, and you sure as shit can defend that by saying:
''Well 150 pages is a lot of pages, I think I've put enough time and effort into this thing and I feel like I totally get the point by now.''

There's a difference between impressions and review, know the bloody difference.

Asking reviewers to see to the end isn't ''insane standards'', seems like you just wanna be a lazy half-ass reviewer.

Click to shrink...

Can you review a TV show after 7 seasons or do you have to wait until the final 10th season is out?
Can book 20 suddenly change everything so a bad book serie turn into pure awesomeness at the final page?

I find it really odd that we can't value how fun or great something is until the very end. Most gamers never finish games, who will write reviews for them?

 

[Timppis]

We would be waiting a LONG time for Ring Fit Adventure reviews.

Most of them already do finish the games they review and this makes the "problem" seem more widespread than it is.

 

[Hentailover]

If your job is to complete a 60+ hour game and review it in a week that's an incredibly labour intensive job and there is very little chance that they would be properly compensated for their time

Click to shrink...

This is an entirely different question about unreasonable deadlines. The solution to a bad deadline is not to just not do your job, it's to fix the deadline. But I guess good luck solving the competitive market under capitalism...

 

[Legacy]

I think it depends on the game, if it's a long RPG, then I would say they might not need to finish entirely but it should be stated in the review (and also how many hours they played).
If it's a 0-40 hour game, then I think they should have to complete it.

 

[CandySTX]

Maybe this is a wild idea... but what if we did away with reviews? Instead focus on impressions and discussions after games come out?

Have people write and discus the state of games towards launch, so complete technical disasters can be avoided. But, other than that, the whole thing seems old.

like, I get the feeling that once someone has ingested enough marketing, they already know if it's a game they want to play or not. Some poor reviewer breaking their ass to finish a 50 hour GaS game over a long weekend just to say "It's ok, 7/10" wasn't going to sway anyone in either direction.

I'm most likely stuck in a ResetEra bubble... but who are day one reviews even for these days, other then publishers and people looking to have their already solidified opinions justified?

 

[Fredrik]

Well if a game has a slow start or first half, but a truly magnificent latter half that you missed out on just because you didn't give it a chance, and fail to mention in your review, then it is simply unfair to the game and the hundreds of developers who work hard on it. It is also unfair to the consumers who read your review and skipped the game, as they could really have enjoyed it.

One of the worst reviews IMO opinion was probably Gamespot's Nier review. They criticise how underdeveloped the story and characters are in the game, but it's very very clear in their review that they did not even attempt the further playthrough beyond the first which really delves deep into the stories and characters.

As such, they have spread misinformation on the game. This is simply unproffessional in my opinion.

Click to shrink...

What about the general consumer who then might buy the game because of the praise for the story and characters and then never get to experience that because they not only have to finish the game, which they rarely do, but have to finish it two times?

 

[Blade Wolf]

Can you review a TV show after 7 seasons or do you have to wait until the final 10th season is out?
Can book 20 suddenly change everything so a bad book serie turn into pure awesomeness at the final page?

I find it really odd that we can't value how fun or great something is until the very end. Most gamers never finish games, who will write reviews for them?

Click to shrink...

That's the worst argument I've ever seen, there's no reason to NOT finish the thing you're reviewing unless it is VERY bad (which is not what we're discussing here).

Also TV shows are usually reviewed by season. This is why we didn't see ''Game of Throne Full Review'' until the finale is aired.

and your last point is just absurd, where are the movie reviewers for people who didn't want to finishing the movie?

 

[ZeroX]

People review TV shows which are a time sink and they usually review the whole season. I can't think of many publications that drop reviewing a TV show 1/3 of the way through so I don't really like the complaining about time thing but I guess its more spread out than a game.

Click to shrink...

Yeah this ain't true

There's outlets that review each individual episodes, but TV season reviews are usually only based on the first few episodes.

 

[Shelbyville Milhouse]

It depends entirely on the game.
You don't need to beat the final boss in Dead Cells to tell if it's a good game or not

 

[ThereAreFourNaan]

Also TV shows are usually reviewed by season. This is why we didn't see ''Game of Throne Full Review'' until the finale is aired.

Click to shrink...

Actually that's a poor example, since review scores are frequently allocated to TV shows based on the first 2-4 episodes given out as a pre-release sampling to critics, and these scores are what show up on the metacritic page for unreleased TV shows. His Dark Materials is currently sitting at 68 on metacritic, For All Mankind is sitting at 62. Neither show is released and critics did not see the full season.

 

[Yossarian]

K

 

[newmoneytrash]

This is an entirely different question about unreasonable deadlines. The solution to a bad deadline is not to just not do your job, it's to fix the deadline. But I guess good luck solving the competitive market under capitalism...

Click to shrink...

I mean I was directly responding to "just do your job" posters but I think this is over simplifying the agency that employees have over their jobs, and being dismissive of professional critics' ability to apply a critical lens to something unless they arbitrarily pass a flagpole

if a reviwer's opinion of a 50 hour game doesn't change in the last 30 hours is that a valuable use of time?

 

[Moz La Punk]

Thanks but I can do my job just fine without your opinion.

anyway, depends on the game.

 

[Kazer]

Yes. That's their job lol.

 

[Potterson]

In most cases, yes.

If it's a roguelike, I think getting complete run isn't necessary.

If it's a driving game, I don't think you have to finish "story mode".

People saying "that's their job, lol" are missing the point, that sometimes you just HAVE to make a review for embargo date. And publishing the review is their job. First and most important thing. Reviewer's work sucks and I'm glad I don't work in the industry anymore.

5 weeks to embargo, yay! But during work hours you also do many other things not related to the review. You have to do them, it's important. And then you have to play after work. Everyday, whole week. That's exhausting. I envy everyone living off Patreon and not having to rush for embargo dates.

 

[_Karooo]

No not needed.

 

[Mezati99]

isn't it basically their fucking job to suffer through shit so i don't?

 

[Leviathan]

As long as they share when they have not beaten the game, they absolutely should not have to do so. A 30 hour plus game is not the same as a 3 hour movie. It is not feasible to expect them to play all of every game.

 

[ZeroX]

Also TV shows are usually reviewed by season. This is why we didn't see ''Game of Throne Full Review'' until the finale is aired.

Click to shrink...

Again, they're usually not. TV show seasons are reviewed by the first few episodes. Game of Thrones sized shows are an exception where the demand for content is strong so they push out seasonal post mortems. Most outlets do pre reviews based on a few episodes or just episodic reviews.

 

[newmoneytrash]

Today, there are more variables one has to consider. Beyond vastly improved forensics, more thorough procedures, and a force driven by statistical successes, you have to - for example - avoid being hoisted by your victim's social media petard.

Again, not to harp on about nostalgia or anything, but you could meet someone in a bar, get them drunk, strangle them in an alleyway, dump the body in the trunk and finish the rest at their home. Try that now, and you'll be in a selfie or two with a crazy umbrella drink.

Social media is self-surveillance.

Click to shrink...

i feel like i just had a stroke

isn't it basically their fucking job to suffer through shit so i don't?

Click to shrink...

no

 

[jenya]

Umm yes.

 

[sleepr]

Ofc they should beat the main story/quest/mode, I'm not even sure why this is even a discussion. It's a job, not a hobbie.

If you're playing a RPG you at least should have to finish the main story/quests, see how the gameplay at high level is different from low level and be able to report on that. If you're playing a MMORPG you at least should have to reach maximum level and play end-game. That's what a respectable reviewer would do, independently of liking the game or not, with the exception of the game not allowing said person to progress in the game due to game breaking bugs or something similar.

Now, in order for this to work publishers also have to cooperate and give early access to the game with embargos that give them the required time to finish the game. Which maybe not be the case all the times, in those cases I would understand that they couldn't have played the majority of the game.

In the case of the game that started this conversation, yes they should have to finish the main campaign which is approximately 30 hours. There's a reason why sony demanded reviewers to finish the main quest in DS. And btw reviewers had two weeks to finish it, there are no excuses here.

 

[Senator Rains]

Yeah, cuz it's their JOB. If game length is the issue, delay your review or convince the devs to send a review copy earlier.

 

[Deleted member 9584]

I think if a game is so frustrating and boring and you're giving it a low score because it's so bad you can't stand to play more, then I think that's very telling about the games quality and not the reviewers professionalism. On the other hand, if a reviewer gives a game a 10/10 without finishing a game, that's suspect.

It's situational. If a game is so bad that the person does not want to play more, that's a valid reason to stop playing and give it a poor review.

 

[signal]

There are definitely cases where it isn't necessary but in most cases I'd say it's more helpful than not. More poll options would be good but voted yes.

 

[NotLiquid]

In an ideal world yes but games as a medium are so markedly different with so many extended variables pertaining to game length that realistically it's not going to be achievable with every game. Some games stretch into becoming 50 hours on average playthroughs, then you have to contend with optional content - so many games have fantastic optional content, should you 100% a game before you're qualified to talk about it? There's just too many games coming out at too fast a pace to be able to tackle everything if it's your job. Most gamers won't see everything in a game they play, or they might drop it halfway, while usually an album or a movie is a comparatively shorter investment that dropping out of it is very rare if you committed to start it. Even books you can control the pace of to some extent. And what do you do with games so ridiculously bad or broken that someome's impressions go without saying like Ride to Hell? Do you really need to sit through an experience so awful expecting it to be redeemed somehow?

Mind you I think games like MGSV wouldn't review as well if they didn't have journalists play through it at a timed review event.

 

[Moz La Punk]

Again, they're usually not. TV show seasons are reviewed by the first few episodes. Game of Thrones sized shows are an exception where the demand for content is strong so they push out seasonal post mortems. Most outlets do pre reviews based on a few episodes or just episodic reviews.

Click to shrink...

correct. The fact that people here think series are watched entirely for reviews just goes to show how out of touch and out of their element people are when it comes to this.

 

[Blade Wolf]

Just my opinion but your review suck ass and holds little to no value if you didn't even bother finishing whatever it is you're reviewing.
It's literally a half-ass review.

How would you feel if someone reviewed The Last of Us 2 and give it a score without getting to the final 1/3?
I guess people wouldn't care if it's a 9/10 or 10/10, but what if it's a 6/10? Is that still okay to you?

I don't know how western people treat their professions but this just came across as lazy to me, I guess that's why so many western AAA games are so buggy at launch, I guess finishing your job isn't really all that important in the west.

Again, they're usually not. TV show seasons are reviewed by the first few episodes. Game of Thrones sized shows are an exception where the demand for content is strong so they push out seasonal post mortems. Most outlets do pre reviews based on a few episodes or just episodic reviews.

Click to shrink...

Point taken but that's not how video games work, except multiplayer ones but they don't have an ending anyway.

 

[Raxgriz]

Its depends on the game, it is story driven then you have to finish it. It is an mmo with repeated gameplay, or sport game, so playing few hours you can judge the game.
So it depends on the game you review.

only a sith deals in absolutes

 

[Damn Silly]

If it's positive then yeah, as presumably you're enjoying it enough to see it to the conclusion.

If it's negative, then while completing a game can help, the experience not being worth finishing is worthy reviewing in its own right.

 

[Bricktop]

I've never in my life played a game for 40 hours and then magically changed my opinion in hour 41.

Playing a game for that long and dropping it because it's so bad you no longer want to continue is every bit as critique and review worthy as any other review. It's a literal condemnation of the game and the only reason this stipulation even exists is so negative reviews get silenced until after the rush, or in worst case forever. It's all about the aggregate and developers and publishers know they can squelch a lot of negativity by enforcing this rule...especially in games that are extremely long.

 

[Skux]

This is silly. Of course you should. Would you review a book without knowing the ending? Would you review a hotel before finishing your stay? Would you review a restaurant before the mains was served? Of course not.

It's ridiculous that we are even posing the question. And grossly unprofessional of staff from Edge to say they simply couldn't be bothered doing the job they are paid to do.

 

[newmoneytrash]

This is silly. Of course you should. Would you review a book without knowing the ending? Would you review a hotel before finishing your stay? Would you review a restaurant before the massive was served? Of course not.

Click to shrink...

literally yes to all of those things lmao

 

[ZeroX]

How would you feel if someone reviewed The Last of Us 2 and give it a score without getting to the final 1/3?

Click to shrink...

I would be fine with this, because you realize 60% of of people who played the original didn't even get that far?

Reviewers who don't finish games are (generally) better reflections of the gaming public than those that do.

I guess people wouldn't care if it's a 9/10 or 10/10, but what if it's a 6/10? Is that still okay to you?

Click to shrink...

Uh yeah that's also okay to me, because I don't take review scores personally. I guess if you were the dev you might care?

 

[Moz La Punk]

This is silly. Of course you should. Would you review a book without knowing the ending? Would you review a hotel before finishing your stay? Would you review a restaurant before the massive was served? Of course not.

It's ridiculous that we are even posing the question. And grossly unprofessional of staff from Edge to say they simply couldn't be bothered doing the job they are paid to do.

Click to shrink...

yes. And in fact this happens with series as well.

 

[OldDirtyGamer]

Yep . How can you rate something with a score that people will deem a consideration in their purchase?

And it you didnt finish it, I'd say that in your review . And I wouldnt take that review as serious

( no I dont mean you had to do every single side quest, etc)

 

[Firmus_Anguis]

If it's a single-player game? Most definitely, yes. I haven't heard a movie-critic ever say, "I didn't watch the whole movie, it's a 2/5!".
Yes, obviously a game requires a lot more of your time, but... Isn't that your job? To convey the entire experience to an audience? That's my opinion, at least.

 

[Skux]

literally yes to all of those things lmao

Click to shrink...

And why should anyone take your review seriously if you choose to do so?

 

[Unkindled]

Yes you don't review a game for the sake of it. If you didn't beat the game don't release your review. Ofcourse this should have exceptions like game breaking bug etc.

 

[newmoneytrash]

And why should anyone take your review seriously if you choose to do so?

Click to shrink...

i love to force myself to continue to eat disgusting food so people on a forum will take me seriously

 

[ZeroX]

If it's a single-player game? Most definitely, yes. I haven't heard a movie-critic ever say, "I didn't watch the whole movie, it's a 2/5!".

Click to shrink...

I mean movie critics have walked out of movies in the past, but you're still being facetious comparing a 2-3 hour movie to a 30 hour game. Reviewers are completing the 4-10 hour games. It's the massively long ones that are in question here.

 

[Blade Wolf]

And why should anyone take your review seriously if you choose to do so?

Click to shrink...

Exactly.

Seriously what kind of lazy ''whatever'' work attitude is that? You'll be fired on your first day if you're in Japan.

 

[Skux]

i love to force myself to continue to eat disgusting food so people on a forum will take me seriously

Click to shrink...

We aren't talking about forums though. These are professionals whose job it is to complete the experience in order to provide feedback to consumers. Even when the food is bad.

 

[Deleted member 37151]

It depends. Sometimes I review games in my spare time. I don't always finish them. But if the game is over 10 hours, I don't see how any publication paying a fair wage could cover their costs. Say you want to pay $15 an hour. That's $150 before you've gone into writing and editing (maybe another two hours). How many articles could generate a profit on that cost?

 

[Slim]

It's their fucking job.

Click to shrink...

Exactly

 

[newmoneytrash]

We aren't talking about forums though. These are professionals whose job it is to complete the experience in order to provide feedback to consumers. Even when the food is bad.

Click to shrink...

you don't need to fully experience an unpleasant experience for it to be a helpful review for a customer

this is both insulting to reviewers *and* to consumers

Seriously what kind of lazy ''whatever'' work attitude is that?

Click to shrink...

a lot of people sounding like boomers in this thread imo

 

[Wink784]

Had this discussion recently, came down on whatever piece of writing it is, the author has to specify how much of it they have experienced, then the rest are semantic arguments. In my opinion the word review implies that the critic has had a complete experience, but especially in games I could see arguments against that, so long as they are transparent I'm ok with that. If they're just calling it a review and put no specific disclaimer in I would expect having finished the game.

 

[daegan]

How are we having this discussion again? It's so tired. You can see credits roll in so many games and not see "everything" a game has in it; it's how a vast majority of players will experience any game. Few people are completionists and a lot of games are constantly changing. A game review should speak to the experience of playing the game honestly, whether that's for 10% or 150% of the time/completion available.

IMO this comes down to why people come to reviews: do you want critical discussion of a game as an expressive work? Are you looking for purchasing advice? Are you looking for if you should play it or not? (Yes, those two are different questions due to rentals in the past and subscriptions in the present.) Or are you (like 2/3 of every review thread on this site) just looking for your third-hand opinion to be validated? These are all reasons why people pay attention to reviews, but some of them will lead to thoughtful insights and some of them will lead to "is this a 67 or a 72 on a 100-point scale? let's get pissed about it."

 

[J_ToSaveTheDay]

isn't it basically their fucking job to suffer through shit so i don't?

Click to shrink...

Yeah, cuz it's their JOB. If game length is the issue, delay your review or convince the devs to send a review copy earlier.

Click to shrink...

Their JOB is to experience the game and share that experience. Their expertise is their ability to articulate that experience at a level above most people. They're expected to have a broader idea of game design concepts, like the current limits of how visuals and audio and storytelling techniques are presented, etc...

There are many reasons that aren't even remotely due to laziness/unprofessionalism for someone to not want to finish a game -- a piece of entertainment media -- over the course of experiencing it.

If a reviewer just gets fed up with a game and decides they don't want to finish it, that's a great and legitimate premise for a review. Their JOB at that point is to put into as detailed writing as possible why they came to that experience -- like maybe they can explore contrasts to other recent games they liked and why that was so much more effective for them, explore their own tastes and why the current game isn't doing anything for them, etc... That's still all useful info that serves the purpose of a review to the reader.

Start to finish experience is arbitrary. There is, indeed, untouched content in that review, but knowing why the reviewer decided not to keep going is still absolutely serving the exact purpose of a review.

Reviews do not measure back to some unchanging, universal standard. These reviewers get paid to tap into larger culture and how the media they experience fits into it -- that's actually their job. Their job isn't to get from start to finish -- but don't take me saying that as it isn't valuable to get from start to finish -- it's just not necessary.

Why do people think this is edgy and/or unprofessional? lol

They're getting paid to examine media and explain how it fits into the culture surrounding it, what value it has to them as individuals and perhaps even suggest how it has value beyond themselves. That can be done without going from start to finish, even if the review ends up positive as a result, but hey, it's also nice when it is from start to finish, too!

EDIT: also worth pointing out that people saying they would get fired for not completing their task are mostly missing what I just said about how reviews work. Being tasked a review is being tasked with articulating your experience. That's the job, period. The experience doesn't have to be start to finish of the game's main content line -- it's sit down, explain to the reader how you felt about it by whatever angle you want to bring to the table.... that's it. They're doing their job. Just because there's a lot of flexibility and autonomy for the writer in it doesn't mean it's not an effective review.

 

[Blade Wolf]

you don't need to fully experience an unpleasant experience for it to be a helpful review for a customer

this is both insulting to reviewers *and* to consumers


a lot of people sounding like boomers in this thread imo

Click to shrink...

You are using selected examples that's usually seen as exceptions to fortify your bad argument. Not every game is ''so bad that it needs no full review''

I'm no boomer (24yo) but some of the attitude I've seen in this thread reminds me of people that do their job shitty.