And I said this is assuming you care about the story and it's important to you.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Should Reviewers Beat Games To Review Them?
- Thread starter Mexen
- Start date
And I said this is assuming you care about the story and it's important to you.
In that case, of course you should play it through the end. But you're naming a factor that ensures the reviewer plays through the end. The point some of us are trying to make is, there are games where this is NOT important.
So the experiences of the 75% of players who played Nier Automata is meaningless?
If I was reviewing it without knowledge of all the routes I would've straight up dropped it in Route B after it seemed like it was just going to be the same game with a different character.
Yes, absolutely.
Because otherwise, dont review it.
Why ?
Because a lot of games happens to have late game content that can either ruin or make the experience.
Because otherwise, dont review it.
Why ?
Because a lot of games happens to have late game content that can either ruin or make the experience.
And I agree with that, I mean some games straight up do not have an ending.
Well I guess it speaks to the quality of the game that only a quarter of players think it's worth playing to completion then, that's enough of a review in of itself
I've seen this argument a few times and I feel like that review would still be absolutely justified - I know everything changes massively after ending A but it's still the experience the reviewer had with the game.
As long as they mentioned that that was the case, and that they didn't feel the need to play on after seeing the message from the developers after the credits then I think it's still absolutely fair.
Some of those Persona 5 reviews finally make so much damn sense.
"How the hell did this game reviewed so well? How did the reviewers miss the atrocious pacing problems?!"
Well, now I know how.
"How the hell did this game reviewed so well? How did the reviewers miss the atrocious pacing problems?!"
Well, now I know how.
not really
you equating criticism to making a hamburger is a bad, bad take
No way. That's not a review but an impressions and should have no score attached to it
its still valid criticism and can help Inform readers but it's not a review of a game.
The reviewer should mention this and let the consumers decide for themselves wether its worth their time and money or not.
Its FAIR if the reviewer gives a bad score citing that the story is good, but it takes a while of dull gameplay to get there.
Its UNFAIR if the reviewer gives a bad score citing the story is bad but in reality, they themselves DID NOT complete the game and explore the story to its fullest.
There is a major difference there.
It's opinion vs ignorance.
Because nobody short of Filip Miucin is doing that? Reviewers are still putting hours into games. They should mention how much they played in the review but you're talking about a hypothetical that wouldn't really exist.
Damn, some of the takes in here are very dishonest. When we talk about not having to finish a game, we genereall talk about reviews that played most of a very long game and saw say about 80%.
That's good enough to have a solid opinion on the game and the last 20% if they indeed magically get much better, won't make up for the other 80.
Nobody is arguning that it's ok to review a 10 hour long game after 2. Sure that's not good enough for a review.
If they played 9 of 10 hours on the other hand, that's a different story.
Also comparsions to movies are dumb, since they are about 2-3 hours long at most and games can much, much longer.
Besides, that are many games were beating it isn't the point, like many rogue-likes or games like Terraria. So while getting to the ending is giving you useful information, it's really not that important.
Alternatively beating the game doesn't actually give you the full picture. such a beating DMC5 once or rushing through hollow knight to get the fasted ending.
Really, beating the game is a rather arbitrary requirment and isn't all that helpful.
For easy, linear game it really isn't that much to ask for, but for other games it sure as hell is.
So it really depends heavily on the game and of course it should be made clear how much the reviewer played regardless.
That's good enough to have a solid opinion on the game and the last 20% if they indeed magically get much better, won't make up for the other 80.
Nobody is arguning that it's ok to review a 10 hour long game after 2. Sure that's not good enough for a review.
If they played 9 of 10 hours on the other hand, that's a different story.
Also comparsions to movies are dumb, since they are about 2-3 hours long at most and games can much, much longer.
Besides, that are many games were beating it isn't the point, like many rogue-likes or games like Terraria. So while getting to the ending is giving you useful information, it's really not that important.
Alternatively beating the game doesn't actually give you the full picture. such a beating DMC5 once or rushing through hollow knight to get the fasted ending.
Really, beating the game is a rather arbitrary requirment and isn't all that helpful.
For easy, linear game it really isn't that much to ask for, but for other games it sure as hell is.
So it really depends heavily on the game and of course it should be made clear how much the reviewer played regardless.
slippery slope fallacy
Though with games in general most people don't finish them, like God of War from last year that won GOTY from a lot of places only has a 50% completion rate for the story and that's higher than most games.
Should Film critics have to watch an entire film to review it?
Or course. Why is this even a question. Remember they are getting paid to review these games, it is their job. You don't get to refuse to do your job because you aren't having fun.
"But game is long and I'm not having fun" is not an excuse to half ass your job.
Or course. Why is this even a question. Remember they are getting paid to review these games, it is their job. You don't get to refuse to do your job because you aren't having fun.
"But game is long and I'm not having fun" is not an excuse to half ass your job.
What happens if the game resets progress, gets permanently glitched, or is too difficult/inaccessible for the reviewer to beat? Should the reviewer just not review it at all then?
Yeah that's my whole point. Reviewers who don't finish games are more likely to represent the general public than those who do. Era wants completionist reviews because that represents the user base here. That's not most gamers.
And yeah games like God of War and Spider Man were impressive exceptions.
They should do their job and play it to completion.
I really don't get the position in this thread where it's ok for someone not to finish a project they've been given for work and are getting paid to do. That wouldn't fly in any other career.
A movie is a few hours.
Regarding getting paid, read my extensive post last page.
As I've mentioned, I think how you react to reviewers not finishing a game before review is linked quite heavily to if you think they're reviewing as a consumer guide or as a critique on the art and their experience of it. The former lends itself heavily to finishing the game, the latter not so much.
This is why there shouldn't be rules on how much someone has played (unless it;s something like 5-10 minutes) - others in this thread have said the reviewer must see the end credits. A reviewer who finished playthrough A of Nier Automata has done - so why is that review suddenly invalid? Because they have to play ti again? Even after the B playthough it doesn't say you should play the game again to get the true ending or whatever, so it would be completely understandable for reviewers not to do so if they didn't already know something else was coming.
As long as reviewers say what they've played in the time they played it in (if they haven't finished the game) then I have zero issues with them writing of scoring a review if that's their prerogative.
Last edited:
In most cases yes.
However if a reviewer tells me he dropped a game after 40 hours because he was bored by it then that tells me more than anything else he could write about an ending they forced themselves to see.
Comparing to movie critics isn't necessarily correct. Games can be long. If a game wastes a players time or needs words like "boring", "slog", then I want to hear about it; including if it was too much for a critic.
However if a reviewer tells me he dropped a game after 40 hours because he was bored by it then that tells me more than anything else he could write about an ending they forced themselves to see.
Comparing to movie critics isn't necessarily correct. Games can be long. If a game wastes a players time or needs words like "boring", "slog", then I want to hear about it; including if it was too much for a critic.
To review something you are committing to seeing whatever that is through and giving your opinion on the overall experience. If you don't finish it then it isn't a review of the whole product.
What needs to stop is the rush to drop reviews at a certain point and if it's a long game reviewers should take their time and play it at a more normal pace. That won't happen though because their employers won't allow it nor will publishers.
What needs to stop is the rush to drop reviews at a certain point and if it's a long game reviewers should take their time and play it at a more normal pace. That won't happen though because their employers won't allow it nor will publishers.
No, they should simply state how much they've played and why they haven't finished it.
I feel like saying yes raises questions like "but did you play it using x class or weapon". I'm fact I would like it if reviewers were transparent with how they played a game. Imagine if someone judged Dark Souls gameplay by just completing it with the bow and ranged magic and didn't state it, there's value in that opinion but they would miss the appeal. Completing something still doesn't give a full picture, but getting a full picture could be way too time consuming, especially if a game is long and they don't enjoy it.
It's preferable they do complete it but worth knowing their opinions if they fail to.
I feel like saying yes raises questions like "but did you play it using x class or weapon". I'm fact I would like it if reviewers were transparent with how they played a game. Imagine if someone judged Dark Souls gameplay by just completing it with the bow and ranged magic and didn't state it, there's value in that opinion but they would miss the appeal. Completing something still doesn't give a full picture, but getting a full picture could be way too time consuming, especially if a game is long and they don't enjoy it.
It's preferable they do complete it but worth knowing their opinions if they fail to.
I think they should finish the games, yes. Not necessarily 100% complete them, but see the game through and do some side content.
It's their damn job. It doesn't matter if its boring or not, it's their job.
It's their damn job. It doesn't matter if its boring or not, it's their job.
I voted yes. And i'll ilustrate why:
MGS V was reviewed during an event where press could play the game for a limited number of time. Due to the time limit, some of them havent even reached the ending of the game before giving it a score. As we all know, the ending of the game was lacking, to say the least.
FF XV final hours increased my personal score of the game by a lot.
Imagine playing MGS 3 only up to The End fight or something.
Imagine playing RDR 2 for 20 hours only and putting a score on it
I would never take someone's opinion seriously if they havent finished the game
"Oh but there are games where this is not important", how entitled can you be of judging something before seeing it to completion
MGS V was reviewed during an event where press could play the game for a limited number of time. Due to the time limit, some of them havent even reached the ending of the game before giving it a score. As we all know, the ending of the game was lacking, to say the least.
FF XV final hours increased my personal score of the game by a lot.
Imagine playing MGS 3 only up to The End fight or something.
Imagine playing RDR 2 for 20 hours only and putting a score on it
I would never take someone's opinion seriously if they havent finished the game
"Oh but there are games where this is not important", how entitled can you be of judging something before seeing it to completion
It has nothing to do with thinking it's a product or an experience. Its how you are classifying your critics as a review or not
If you are calling it a review you must completely the main story and put enough time in all game modes/options to cover it. If you don't then it's not a review. It's impressions and should be filed as such. Just like we differentiate between a preview
It doesn't invalidate their opinions, it doesn't mean they shouldn't post their articles but it's just not a full review and shouldn't be scored
I expect book reviewers to finish the book before writing a review. Even if it's suuuuper long or lose interest halfway through. Sorry if you don't then call it "My thoughts through the first 5 chapters"
Using game length, or "have to get it out by embargo" is not a justification of calling it a review and not finishing it. You've seen when this backlash finally happened with multiplayer games and MMOs where finally publications posted early impressions and the reviews showed up later when they got to the end game content or checked live server status, etc
No, I dont think games should have to be completed. Providing you have seen all or most of the game mechanics then that should be enough. Also, it's an opinion piece, as long as the reviewer specifies that they played a game for X amount of time, that should be sufficient.
I've been a gaming journo for 21 years now, worked for almost everyone (from playstation official magazine to psm, to occasionally kotaku and so on and on) and i've been and still am editor in chief of a few major publications....so i feel i should chime in on this.
Whenever i was asked what i did for a living by some gamer that didn't know me, the reaction to my answer was always: "Oh my god, that's the best job ever!!! You play video games for a living, that's what dreams are made of!!!"
And that couldn't be further from the truth.
Don't get me wrong, i LOVE this job, but there's this weird, twisted, idilliac image often attached to it that doesn't take into consideration a bunch of things.
Deadlines and responsibilities being probably the biggest ones.
The "uneducated" (for lack of a better term) always starts from a place of "i totally want to write a review of this game i love" ...which...is fine, but i've seen so many young kids start strong and fall out of love with the job the moment theyrealize that it is, indeed: a job.
Sometimes you need to cover shit games, overly long ones or games that just plain bore you to death...and, well, you suck it up and do it.
What i'm trying to say here is that i understand how the Edge reviewer felt, i TOTALLY get it (not regarding DS, i'm speaking in general).
However, if he was one of my guys and assuming i couldn't give the review to some other guy in a pinch, i would fire his ass without even blinking.
That's because the job comes with responsibilities and you can't review a product without fully experiencing it.
Now, keep this in mind: i'm not saying that you can't form YOUR OWN opinion on a game in a short time without finishing it, that's totally legit for any CONSUMER. If you've been gaming for a few years, you can actually know even by a lenghty gameplay trailer if it's a game for you or not. But if you are a professional, you MUST follow some rules and experiencing a product to its full extent is one of those rules. You're at the service of the readers, people that span from nerdy nerds to total casuals. What if at the end of the game there's a huge twist? It might not change YOUR opinion on the game...but there might be a reader out there looking exactly for that kind of thing.
Long story short: i like the clause of "don't review it if you don't finish it", and while i'm probably gonna be accused of being an old dinosaur, i believe there's been a downfall in standards when it comes to games journalism in the last decade or so. Especially since personality took the place of professionality in many ways. Also, the mad rush for clicks and to be "the first" is not helping at all in terms of quality of the content.
Sorry for the long post and the inevitable typos, i'm supershort on time due to a family lunch and don't have time to re-read.
Peace.
Whenever i was asked what i did for a living by some gamer that didn't know me, the reaction to my answer was always: "Oh my god, that's the best job ever!!! You play video games for a living, that's what dreams are made of!!!"
And that couldn't be further from the truth.
Don't get me wrong, i LOVE this job, but there's this weird, twisted, idilliac image often attached to it that doesn't take into consideration a bunch of things.
Deadlines and responsibilities being probably the biggest ones.
The "uneducated" (for lack of a better term) always starts from a place of "i totally want to write a review of this game i love" ...which...is fine, but i've seen so many young kids start strong and fall out of love with the job the moment theyrealize that it is, indeed: a job.
Sometimes you need to cover shit games, overly long ones or games that just plain bore you to death...and, well, you suck it up and do it.
What i'm trying to say here is that i understand how the Edge reviewer felt, i TOTALLY get it (not regarding DS, i'm speaking in general).
However, if he was one of my guys and assuming i couldn't give the review to some other guy in a pinch, i would fire his ass without even blinking.
That's because the job comes with responsibilities and you can't review a product without fully experiencing it.
Now, keep this in mind: i'm not saying that you can't form YOUR OWN opinion on a game in a short time without finishing it, that's totally legit for any CONSUMER. If you've been gaming for a few years, you can actually know even by a lenghty gameplay trailer if it's a game for you or not. But if you are a professional, you MUST follow some rules and experiencing a product to its full extent is one of those rules. You're at the service of the readers, people that span from nerdy nerds to total casuals. What if at the end of the game there's a huge twist? It might not change YOUR opinion on the game...but there might be a reader out there looking exactly for that kind of thing.
Long story short: i like the clause of "don't review it if you don't finish it", and while i'm probably gonna be accused of being an old dinosaur, i believe there's been a downfall in standards when it comes to games journalism in the last decade or so. Especially since personality took the place of professionality in many ways. Also, the mad rush for clicks and to be "the first" is not helping at all in terms of quality of the content.
Sorry for the long post and the inevitable typos, i'm supershort on time due to a family lunch and don't have time to re-read.
Peace.
VIDEO GAMES ARE NOT MOVIES.
STOP COMPARING THEM.
A movie is maybe 3 hours, tops. Even if you don't like it, just sitting through to the end is not too much to ask.
Video games can be as many as 100 hours long and more. If you don't like it after 20 hours why THE FUCK would you have to sit through the remaining 80 hours!?
Fuck this toxic bullshit reasoning. It makes me sick.
There's nothing toxic about it. If you're calling it a review and putting a score to it yes.
if you don't want to do that, don't call it a review. File it under early impressions and be done with it. Or talk about it in a video. Or talk on a podcast.
Game length should have no bearing on if it's ok to not finish a game before writing a review. Just like book length isn't Or reviewing any other show, movie, album, etc
Yes, in my mind a review should be of someone who played the whole game. If they hated the game so much they couldn't finish, that's fine but those should be impressions
I don't think it's quite as black and white as the poll proposes but I am strongly leaning towards 'Yes' and voted for that as well.
A review that is based on experiencing the entire game is better informed and thus inherently more valuable.
Also, the reasons for NOT finishing a game before review usually boil down to two things:
Important to note here is that this mostly applies to single player focused games. This discussion gets a whole lot more complicated when talking about MMOs and service oriented games.
A review that is based on experiencing the entire game is better informed and thus inherently more valuable.
Also, the reasons for NOT finishing a game before review usually boil down to two things:
- Not enough time to beat it
- Didn't enjoy it
Important to note here is that this mostly applies to single player focused games. This discussion gets a whole lot more complicated when talking about MMOs and service oriented games.
Last edited:
Thank you for the thoughtful response and it's probably the best argument I read so far in this thread in favor of no. Your example with Zelda is indeed good and and made me appreciate that in the conceptual sense the answer to op's question could indeed be a no. I agree that with an open-world game a reviewer doesn't need to actually find all the little objects scattered throughout the map. I failed to consider that with my first post. That being said, a thread has a context and this one follows the review thread for Death Stranding. This is a game that has an heavy focus on narrative and represents a journey towards an end. I would expect a reviewer to actually reach that end before publishing his/her review. I guess with your help I'm able to further clarify my opinion. You don't actually have to 100% a game (specially a big open world game and most definitely when it comes to an online game) to have a review, but I expect you to finish the story, specially in a narrative-focused game. But this is also something to do with why I play games, as I consider the narrative/story one of the most important variables.
I can't accept a reviewer not finishing a game because it "bored them", like so many are stating and defending, as the fact that doing something for money even when it isn't giving you pleasure is actually what separates a profession from an hobby, and we should held gaming journalists to some standards if we want gaming to be more than an hobby. Also, a review is not simply "an opinion" like some are stating.
Regarding your example of a movie critic leaving a film in the middle, yeah, I can't vouch for that. I think it's a snobe and pedantic thing to do and a way for film critics to trash a movie and feel superior. If you're getting payed you should be able to endure it. I can recall a lot of movies that improved remarkably in the last half-hour.
And of course I've left games, books and movies halfway, some I was enjoying, others not so much, but I'm not being payed to go through them.
Depends massively on the game. A short, 10 hour or so game - yep, unless there are specific reasons such as the game crashing, which should then be mentioned in the review.
If it's a GAAS game, or a game that you can't really beat - Tetris for example - then no. That should also be mentioned in the review as well.
Basically, so long as the reviewer explains what they have played then I'm fine with them not completing a game.
If it's a GAAS game, or a game that you can't really beat - Tetris for example - then no. That should also be mentioned in the review as well.
Basically, so long as the reviewer explains what they have played then I'm fine with them not completing a game.
Reviewers should review the main experience. If the game is single player with a narrative pacing focus, playing from the beginning to the credits roll should be mandatory, since the end is part of the experience and will be an important factor.
That said, a lot of games aren't like that. People could have the flexibility to review different aspects of a game if they're separated enough, like dunno, Fifa story mode or Fifa main classic modes. But in a single player story focused game, the entire plot development from start to end IS a gameplay element, so everything is integrated.
That said, a lot of games aren't like that. People could have the flexibility to review different aspects of a game if they're separated enough, like dunno, Fifa story mode or Fifa main classic modes. But in a single player story focused game, the entire plot development from start to end IS a gameplay element, so everything is integrated.
I think it depends on the type of game that's being reviewed. If it's a game where the story is a major draw, I certainly feel that finishing it to story's end is preferable. If it's a multiplayer focused game or something where the story is supplemental and the gameplay is really the primary focus, I think the only necessity there is that the reviewer plays enough of the game that they feel they got a rounded feel of experience and determine it's enjoyability and flaws.
Obviously if a story focused game is extremely long or it's simply isn't enjoyable enough to finish, the reviewer shouldn't force themselves to complete it, but they should mention that in the review IMO. This is under ideal situations though, and I understand that many reviewers simply don't have enough time to complete many of the games they have to review. It doesn't really bother me much at all if the reviewer didn't complete the game as a whole, especially as most games have a lot of things going for them than just the story alone, and most of those other elements you can get a good feel on long before the end of the game. But in the best of circumstances I would prefer if the reviewer completed the story mode of a game if the that's a focus, as a lot of stories can come down to how it ties itself together in the last act.
Obviously if a story focused game is extremely long or it's simply isn't enjoyable enough to finish, the reviewer shouldn't force themselves to complete it, but they should mention that in the review IMO. This is under ideal situations though, and I understand that many reviewers simply don't have enough time to complete many of the games they have to review. It doesn't really bother me much at all if the reviewer didn't complete the game as a whole, especially as most games have a lot of things going for them than just the story alone, and most of those other elements you can get a good feel on long before the end of the game. But in the best of circumstances I would prefer if the reviewer completed the story mode of a game if the that's a focus, as a lot of stories can come down to how it ties itself together in the last act.
How many hours a week are you putting in?
Because unless it's somehow 80+ and you're still failing to complete games (most of which can easily be critical pathed in 20 hours) I don't buy the sob story.
In no other career would not completing a project you've been given and turning in a report be considered acceptable. Especially when that project is a recreational activity. Plenty of YouTubers do it for essentially free, which is part of the reason why gaming journalists are in such a pickle.
If you don't want to play games then don't be a game reviewer?
How many games have a critical path to completion that are 100 hours long or more?
And we're talking about professionals here. Can I have that attitude to my work? If I'm not enjoying my 80 hour work week do I get to leave early, turn in a "report" and have people on forums defend me because "why should I have to do my job if I'm not enjoying it?"
Most games can be fairly easily completed in 20-30 hours. Less than a working week. And they are a recreational activity, so the vast majority of work out there will be less enjoyable that those 20-30 hours, and they can do it at home to boot.
Not completing a game you are being paid to review because you can't be bothered is unprofessional.
I find it shocking that this has to be pointed out.
Last edited:
