Is it important for a reviewer to finish the game?

Jimrpg · Sep 29, 2018

With AC: Odyssey coming in at 100 hours, and with the massive fall period of games to cover, do you think its important for a reviewer to finish the main story or just play 'enough' of it and maybe watch the rest of it somewhere to review the game?

I'm really in two minds about this - on the one hand, a lot of reviewers either don't say they beat the game or don't offer a lot of thoughts on the end game. Obviously part of it is due to spoilers, but if they didn't finish the game, the review may not be as complete as someone else who beat the game.

On the other hand, I don't know how many games that have really flipped the script and recovered from a bad game to begin with to a great one later on. I've played plenty of games just in the hope it gets better, when they usually don't.

What are your thoughts on this?

ColdSun · Sep 29, 2018

Depends on the game. MMOs? No, I don't expect them to even get close to end-game.
Other games with much quicker times to completion? Absolutely. Games like Deus Ex: Mankind Divided should absolutely been grilled over the way the game abruptly ended. It was a huge detractor to one's enjoyment in the game.

Additionally, I like to know ahead of time if a game is crammed with useless bloat to prolong the experience.

TheBeardedOne · Sep 29, 2018

It's preferable for a reviewer to finish every game he or she reviews, but some games are so long these days that it's sometimes an unfair expectation. Couple this with the fact that many reviewers make nothing (or next to that) and just do it out of passion outside of their regular lives and day-to-day jobs, and it's an even bigger ask for all reviewers to beat all games.

Compbros · Sep 29, 2018

Yes. They shouldn't be getting codes to make things easier or less grindy, they shouldn't be speeding through the game until they decide they've seen enough to give a fair review. They should get the same experience as the people they're writing for are gonna get when they play it for that first day.

Unfortunately AFAIK review copies don't come in early enough to make this feasible considering the "need" to put out a review as soon as possible.

Weiss · Sep 29, 2018

How do you expect someone with four different games to crush and articles to write by the end of the week to make their way through a 60 hour RPG?

Depends on the game. Modern six hour games, as an example, yeah go ahead and crush through them.

Deleted member 4034 · Sep 29, 2018

Wait, you're saying it takes 100 hours to see the credits of AC Odyssey? And since it's a Ubisoft game, those credits will take 100 hours?

I don't expect reviewers to 100% games or go for true endings. But yeah, finish the game, see credits, do SOME side content along the way. Tackle some endgame content if it's there.

JusDoIt · Sep 29, 2018

Just disclose it if you didn't finish.

Jawmuncher · Sep 29, 2018

compbros said:
Yes. They shouldn't be getting codes to make things easier or less grindy, they shouldn't be speeding through the game until they decide they've seen enough to give a fair review. They should get the same experience as the people they're writing for are gonna get when they play it for that first day.

Unfortunately AFAIK review copies don't come in early enough to make this feasible considering the "need" to put out a review as soon as possible.

What if I'm rushing through it the first day I get it myself though? I've definitely done that before.

StarPhlox · Sep 29, 2018

No, I don't think it's necessary for every reviewer to finish the games they review. They should, however, do as Kotaku does and say how many hours they spent with the game and where they invested their time (e.g. played through half of the campaign in 10 hours and spent another 5 in multiplayer).

Jimrpg · Sep 29, 2018

TheBeardedOne said:
It's preferable for a reviewer to finish every game he or she reviews, but some games are so long these days that it's sometimes an unfair expectation. Couple this with the fact that many reviewers make nothing (or next to that) and just do it out of passion outside of their regular lives and day-to-day jobs, and it's an even bigger ask for all reviewers to beat all games.

It's almost impossible I believe for any part time reviewers to do it as a hobby when there are so many games, and games are so long these days. Plus the writing takes time and the go to place for reviews these days are video reviews on youtube, which takes even longer (capturing, editing, VO). I considered doing youtube reviews, but with a full time job, I just don't have the time.

Thorn · Sep 29, 2018

100% no but see the damn ending.

Some games front load the cool shit for a honeymoon period and then absolutely collapse by the 60% mark.

Compbros · Sep 29, 2018

Jawmuncher said:
What if I'm rushing through it the first day I get it myself though? I've definitely done that before.

Marathon gaming session is totally possible, I played Spider-man like that. But what I'm saying is taking Spider-man and skipping basically all the side content in an attempt to finish the game ASAP.

Gunny T Highway · Sep 29, 2018

Depends on the game or genre. Expecting a reviewer to complete a 100 hour RPG within a couple of weeks is asking too much. Also reviewers tend to have multiple reviews on their plate so they have to finish as much of a game they can to formulate enough content for a review before deadlines. Now in a ideal world would I love reviewers to do a complete review after one hundred percenting a game? Yes. But in reality this rarely happens.

Jimrpg · Sep 29, 2018

Bobo Dakes said:
Wait, you're saying it takes 100 hours to see the credits of AC Odyssey? And since it's a Ubisoft game, those credits will take 100 hours?

I don't expect reviewers to 100% games or go for true endings. But yeah, finish the game, see credits, do SOME side content along the way. Tackle some endgame content if it's there.

https://www.reddit.com/r/assassinsc...ssins_creed_odysseys_story_will_be_100_hours/

Y2Kev · Sep 29, 2018

No, just disclose how long you played and maybe you can say where you played to in a spoiler or something.

Jimrpg · Sep 29, 2018

JusDoIt said:
Just disclose it if you didn't finish.

I don't think reviewers are going to do that.

Xelan · Sep 29, 2018

No, game reviewers shouldn't be forced to finish games in order to have the right to review it, especially if the reason they didn't finish it was due to the game itself. If a reviewer i trust and I know we have similar tastes in games and they said a particular game was a boring slog and they quit halfway through, then that is useful to me since there is a high likelihood that I too would find it a boring slog and also quit and be out whatever amount I spent on the game.

TheBeardedOne · Sep 29, 2018

arbok26 said:
It's almost impossible I believe for any part time reviewers to do it as a hobby when there are so many games, and games are so long these days. Plus the writing takes time and the go to place for reviews these days are video reviews on youtube, which takes even longer (capturing, editing, VO). I considered doing youtube reviews, but with a full time job, I just don't have the time.

It's not impossible, it's just draining and hard to keep up with. This is made worse if you complete every game. I have friends who do it, and they're often overwhelmed by the amount of work that doesn't pay, but continue to do it as a passion project.

Smaller websites have small teams, because it's hard to find people who don't want money, and those people get saddled with a ton of work. Especially the better writers.

Y2Kev · Sep 29, 2018

arbok26 said:
https://www.reddit.com/r/assassinsc...ssins_creed_odysseys_story_will_be_100_hours/

I just can't believe this. Persona 5 took me 65 hours to finish the main story. This is DQ7 tier.

less · Sep 29, 2018

As long as the reviewer mentions how long they played and what they did I think that it is more than fine for them to not finish games that can take a considerable amount of time to complete. While they may be giving an incomplete review of the game they still are reviewing what they experienced and thus can inform gamers of the their thoughts on that experience. How much value gamers want to put on that review is up to them.

Aters · Sep 29, 2018

What do you mean by "finish"? Main story? All side quests? What about multiplayer games?

Wulfric · Sep 29, 2018

Absolutely not. If they did the journalist codes would need to come out way earlier and the reviews would be turned in later.

Most reviews I've read have a little addendum giving the TL:DR of hours and patch version played

Rayman not Ray · Sep 29, 2018

I feel conflicted. In the terms or the gameplay, definitely no need to finish the game. But in terms of the story, it's the ending that often makes the narrative. I don't think Persona 3 would be one of my favorite games of all time if not for the ending. Then again, that's an 120 hour game. That's a lot to ask of a reviewer.

JusDoIt · Sep 29, 2018

arbok26 said:
I don't think reviewers are going to do that.

I mean, that's the ethical thing to do. If they don't finish and say the review is based on limited time with the game, that's fine.

Jeff ChickenDig · Sep 29, 2018

Really depends on the text, but yeah you definitely need to mention that you didn't finish.

Generally I'm fine with a shit game that is just way too frustrating, but as long as the writer breaks it all down, why he/she didn't finish.

I can't really think of a scenario where I'm fine with a super positive review.... that didn't finish the game though.

That is just weird.

Spirit of Jazz · Sep 29, 2018

No. I don't get the benefit of playing a game you don't want to play no more when the people you're reviewing it for won't. Just be sure to mention it.

QuigleyMcShine · Sep 29, 2018

If a game is so bad that a reviewer can't stand to finish it that might be the most useful review of all.

MrTroubleMaker · Sep 29, 2018

yes ... its their "job" Most people don't get paid if I they halfway finish their work ...

AdversaryOne · Sep 29, 2018

No, just tell us how many hours you did play, try to touch every mode if possible and that's fine by me.

TheBeardedOne · Sep 29, 2018

As gamers, we know that you get to a point where you've seen pretty much everything a game has to offer and can form a pretty good opinion and write your thoughts down. It's unlikely that they will change much after this point.

I'm all for beating games and doing what you can to, but sometimes there's just not enough time. There are too many games.

MrTroubleMaker said:
yes ... its their "job" Most people don't get paid if I they halfway finish their work ...

But it's not. Not really. Many reviewers do it as a hobby outside of their real lives and obligations, and don't get paid at all. If they do, maybe they get $5.

Deleted member 4037 · Sep 29, 2018

Depends on the type of game, if its narrative driven then I would say they should, if its more gameplay focused, you can probably get away with skipping a bit. There should be a point where you have played enough, I dont expect a review for odyssey to go way into the post game or botw reviewer to get every shrine and side mission. The one thing they should all be though is transparent about how much of the game they have actually played.

Jedi2016 · Sep 29, 2018

Depends on the game, really. Ideally, yes, especially with games that have a definitive story with a beginning, middle, and end. Do they need to 100% it? No, of course not.

I also believe that if they don't finish it, the review should clearly state that right at the beginning.

TheBeardedOne · Sep 29, 2018

I remember being a member of another forum 10 or more years ago, and a guy stated that reviewers should have to complete every mission, see every side quest, find every collectible and do everything to 100% a game before writing. It made me laugh.

Jimrpg · Sep 29, 2018

TheBeardedOne said:
It's not impossible, it's just draining and hard to keep up with. This is made worse if you complete every game. I have friends who do it, and they're often overwhelmed by the amount of work that doesn't pay, but continue to do it as a passion project.

Smaller websites have small teams, because it's hard to find people who don't want money, and those people get saddled with a ton of work. Especially the better writers.

Well by 'impossible', i meant like you said, draining. Doing youtube vids, it adds alot of extra time, time which could be just spent playing games. Guess it depends how quickly you can get out reviews.

Y2Kev said:
I just can't believe this. Persona 5 took me 65 hours to finish the main story. This is DQ7 tier.

Haha, well they said there's 30 hours of cutscenes and dialogue (that could be skipped or read quickly).

Jimrpg · Sep 29, 2018

Aters said:
What do you mean by "finish"? Main story? All side quests? What about multiplayer games?

I think most people would consider 'finish' as seeing the credits (usually after the main story).

For something like a fighting game - maybe that would be trying out all the characters.

JusDoIt said:
I mean, that's the ethical thing to do. If they don't finish and say the review is based on limited time with the game, that's fine.

Yeah definitely but I honestly don't see too many reviewers doing it, because its like an asterisk.

SavoyPrime · Sep 29, 2018

Depending on the type of game, I believe they should. Lord knows I've played games that start off good (or not impressive) and then end up being nothing that I thought it would be.

Marukoban · Sep 29, 2018

No they don't have to, especially not for game like AC (those games with 100 hours of gameplay), where a lot of the things are just repetitions.
Also if reviewer feels the game is not good in 20-30 hours, I doubt another 70 hours will change that.

packy17 · Sep 29, 2018

If you are *reviewing* a game, then yes, it's expected that you experience at least the main path of the game.

You can still have valid opinions (positive or negative) about a game before finishing it, but you can't give something a score (literal or not) in good faith if you haven't seen it through to the end.

Drain You · Sep 29, 2018

Def not 100%, even finishing the game I'm not really sure where I stand. Reviews are used to inform me as to whether I think I'll like a game or not. Most of the time I know if a game is for me after a few hours. On the other hand this is part of their job and I feel like a reviewer really needs to dig deep into a game in order to properly inform.

WrenchNinja · Sep 29, 2018

It's ideal that they finish a game, but I'm not going to begrudge a reviewer not finishing one. As long as they state that they didn't and why they didn't.

Fawz · Sep 29, 2018

They should be transparent about the state they played in when they reviewed the game. Platform, Difficulty, Total time played, % completion, Solo or Online, ect...

Personally it depends on the game but I don't put much stock in reviewers who only spend a day or two with a substantial game that's 24h+ to finish

lvl 99 Pixel · Sep 29, 2018

if you're not going to finish it that needs to be stated upfront

Drain You · Sep 29, 2018

Made up my mind, I'm going with

packy17 said:
If you are *reviewing* a game, then yes, it's expected that you experience at least the main path of the game.

You can still have valid opinions (positive or negative) about a game before finishing it, but you can't give something a score (literal or not) in good faith if you haven't seen it through to the end.

That.

Smurf · Sep 29, 2018

No, but it's important that they're transparent about it. I think. There are different types of reviews/reviewers for different kinds of audiences, so I don't expect every publication to be good and finish every game they review.

Jimrpg · Sep 29, 2018

Jeff ChickenDig said:
Really depends on the text, but yeah you definitely need to mention that you didn't finish.

Generally I'm fine with a shit game that is just way too frustrating, but as long as the writer breaks it all down, why he/she didn't finish.

I can't really think of a scenario where I'm fine with a super positive review.... that didn't finish the game though.

That is just weird.

Marukoban said:
No they don't have to, especially not for game like AC (those games with 100 hours of gameplay), where a lot of the things are just repetitions.
Also if reviewer feels the game is not good in 20-30 hours, I doubt another 70 hours will change that.

I think this makes the most sense honestly, if a reviewer is fair on why he dropped the game and how long he played it for vs the amount of enjoyment he had, then I don't see a problem with not finishing the game.

If I a game is really great, but didn't finish the game due to time constraints, i think its fair for really long games. I guess there's always the issue with people dropping really short games, but that doesn't really happen too often.

ckareset · Sep 29, 2018

I'd say in most cases yes.

ShadowFox08 · Sep 29, 2018

No, but I think playing a fair amount of time is required. How much depends on the game and the overall pacing, which is pretty subject. You don't have to play the game all the way through to get a good feeling of the game. Not to mention, you have to factor how long they have these review copies and how many games they are reviewing at once.. as well as writing the article up which takes a lot of time.

TheBeardedOne · Sep 29, 2018

Of course, there are differences between reviewers. There are the IGN, Gamespot, Polygon and Game Informer guys and gals who do it as a job with a salary, and play them in an office setting I assume. They have 8 hour workdays and have lighter review loads.

Then there are the passionate hobby reviewers, who write for somewhat prestigious sites that aren't able to pay much, and have to do it on top of their career jobs and home lives.

The same should not be expected of both types.

ShadowFox08 said:
No, but I think playing a fair amount of time is required. How much depends on the game and the overall pacing, which is pretty subject. You don't have to play the game all the way through to get a good feeling of the game. Not to mention, you have to factor how long they have these review copies and how many games they are reviewing at once.. as well as writing the article up which takes a lot of time.

Well said

Liam Allen-Miller · Sep 29, 2018

MrTroubleMaker said:
yes ... its their "job" Most people don't get paid if I they halfway finish their work ...

Okay, dude, 99% of games journalists are contract workers or are paid on a per article basis. How is it reasonable to say they should be finishing 60+ hour games to write reviews when they're not paid for that time? One doesn't need to play 100% of a game to come away with a strong understanding of a game, anyways.

TheBaldwin · Sep 29, 2018

Depends on game length, but i want reviewers to give all kinds of opinions

A reviewer saying they just couldnt play anymore of a 40 hour rog says alot about the quality of the game itself

Is it important for a reviewer to finish the game?

Is it important to finish the game as a reviewer?

Yes

No

Depends on game length (give length and reasons in comments below.)

Together, we are strangers

User requested ban

▲ Legend ▲

Crisis Dino

Unshakable Resolve - One Winged Slayer

One Winged Slayer

Self-requested ban

▲ Legend ▲

User requested account closure

Self-requested ban

▲ Legend ▲

▲ Legend ▲

Attempted to circumvent ban with an alt account