Should reviews only be written by individuals who've completed the whole game ?

As a guy who reads reviews in gaming magazines and watches reviews on gaming sites, the same thought flow through my mind after watching or reading them.."I bet he/she has'nt even played the whole game"..

Don't get me wrong, the majority of reviews are very informative, feeding us the info we require.. BUTwhilst playing through certain games 'online or off' after reading/watching certain reviews, it sometimes becomes obvious that the individial responsible for the review did'nt spend enough time with the game.. Whether it be due to busy work schedules or facing deadlines..

So my question is simple "Should reviews only be written by individuals who've completed the whole game ?"

P.S.. This topic isn't solely about GAMESPOT, it's in general.

"It's a great time to be a gamer, game on"

Decades Of Gaming.

I think that generally speaking reviewers should strive to finish the game as the wrap-up and feelings one gets from finishing a game is a strong indication on how satisfying a game playing experience can be. Do they like how it ended? Was it satisfying? Regardless or because of the ending, does the reviewer still feel like jumping right back into the game?

I think thats how it should be. For obvious reasons. Replay value, ending, quality towards the end of the game.

Well there is a pretty bad flaw to that way of doing things.

First, what is a "completed" game? Is that 100% completion, main storyline completion, or sugested sidequests completed? For example, if you want 100% completion I should not be able to review Saint's Row 2 because I haven't done every little side mission? If you want just main storyline games like Final Fantasy would be stripped of important and sometimes highly enjoyable sidequests. Is Chrono Trigger completed after one play through or after you get all the items, weapons and endings?

Second, what about sports games? There is no "completion" for those games. I can finish a single game, or a single season, or a single franchise, but the experience will change depending on the team.

Third, what about MMORPG's? Can you complete WoW or Everquest? Certainly not, and even if you use the criteria of main storyline there are different classes and whatnot. So by the "completed" standard, no one should be able to review a MMORPG right? What about a game like Animal Crossing?

Last, it's just not how things are done. If a game needed to be complete to be reviewed magazines would never get reviews out on time. If you get a game that has 50+ hours of gameplay you are already behind a week when you get a copy of the game. And that is saying that you spend 40 hours to play it and nothing else. Think of the number of reviewers you would need if you wanted that level of completion to review something. Much less a magazine or site that has multiple editors reviewing the same game. So now you want three to four people reviewing a game that takes 50+ hours to complete, that's a lot of wasted play time don't you think?

So all of that being said, I think that if you are looking for completion to be the standard for review that you are looking at reviews for the wrong reason. I want a review to tell me how the game plays, how it looks and how it feels, what I should expect from a game if I want to play it, not hey I beat it and this is what I think. Remember, a review is just one person's opinion, it should be there to tell you what to expect while playing (controls, graphics, sound), not what the game is totally about.

Compeleted means you have done the main game...Clocked means you finished the game 100%. Or thats the way it used to be.stike22

Names and whatnot aside, my points still stand, there are games that cannot be completed, therefor how can you review them? A review should be a peek into whato expect, not a summary of the game itself.

It's obvious that professional gaming sites and magazines finish the games. The fact that anyone thinks they don't is unprofessional and just mean. User reviews, maybe. However, if a game manages to turn you away from it forever, that's a sign the game isn't good, and anything that comes after that can't make up for the dredgery of the first and second opinion of a game. Also, multiplayer shouldn't be part of some reviews. If a single-player campaign has to suffer for it, they should scrap out the multiplayer and work on the single-player instead, which has been a staple of games from the beginning. But this is just my opinion. The first and second sentences are fact, however.

Also, while we're discussing "completion", finishing the main storyline should give you a good idea on the quality of the game itself, and you are mostly able to see in which direction the sidequests go and the quality of them as well. Ultimately, reviews have to consider those who aren't going to do every little thing in the game. Sidequests are just what their name implies: something extra to keep you playing, but the gameplay has to make you want to complete the game. If you're still having a good time at the end of the game, the sidequests should be at equal quality.

Definitely. Hell, I don't review a game until I've beaten it. I don't 100% it, because I consider beating it to give me enough of what the developers intended me to get. I also work at a normal pace, so I usually don't complain about a game being short after pulling an all-nighter.

If reviewers have to complete games before giving a review, then Superman 64 would have never been reviewed! :PMike1978Smith

Oh yeah. Ending credits is what matters not % nonsense.

I prefer that reviewers complete the game, but there are some games that providing a timely review proves difficult. I do think that the reviewer should be upfront about whether he completed the game.

Compeleted means you have done the main game...Clocked means you finished the game 100%.stike22

I don't consider a game to be completed until it's reached 100% completion. Clocking isn't a term (to me)...

Yes, yes, yes! I despise when people have an unformed opinion about a product, and that is what not playing a game to completetion is. If you didn't play online, I'll let that slide if you mention it. But it is my honest opinion everyone should post their gamercard when reviewing (if it's a 360 game). Put up or shut up.

I think you should "complete" anything before writing a review on it.

This reminds me of when I was reading negative reviews for Neon Genesis Evangelion, and under where it listed episodes it would say something like "I saw 10 of 26 episodes, I saw 8 of 26 episodes". As most people know, even if they havn't seen the series, it radically changes in the last two episodes, making your opinion worthless.

I always thought it would be awesome of a first person shooter all of a sudden turned into a real-time-strategy game in the last 3/4ths, that would be hilarious.

I din't think they need to have completed the whole game, but they need to play a bery substantial portion of it. If they are a few hours away from the end, they should still have enoug info to write an informative review

It does'nt take a genius to realise that individuals making a living reviewing books or movies would of mostlikely watched the movie or read the book they are reviewing.. A) It's part of their job discription.. B) Obviously it makes sense to research what your writing about.. and C) When your honest with your readers, you gain their trust..

My question was simply.. "Should reviews only be written by individuals who've completed the whole game".. It's was interesting reading gamers interpretations on what 'the whole game' actually consists of..

If I owned a gaming site or magazine, and part of the site/magazines job was to complete reviews, informing the public with a better understanding about a product.. Would'nt it make sense for me to give my employees more time to compose realistic and honest reviews ? Instead of knocking out identical 'ten for a penny' reviews..

Anyway, personally I think if your reviewing a single player title like say for example 'Ninja gaiden 2' or 'Bioshock'.. you should at least complete the games story.. I want to know if the ending is great, dont you ? I certainly don't want details, but it's always worth knowing if the trip is worth takingto the destination !.. I not saying play the game two or three times just to to see how alternative endings play out, that would be ridiculous.. Just be honest..

If it's a R.P.G say like 'Fallout 3', yet again, at least complete the games story and be honest about the amount of side quests you completed.

Some readers pointed out that certain sports titles and online multiplayer titles would take forever to complete or they would be simply impossible to finish..That certainly makes sense.. But if your reviewing a title that falls into one of those categories, be honest about the amount of time spent on and off line, about your experiences, and about how far your characterleveled up ect.. Then at least, gamers like you and me have a great understanding what to expect and what not to expect..

Like I said in the original post, I'm not complaining about GAMESPOT, I just believe in honesty.

Decades Of Gaming.

I certainly don't want details, but it's always worth knowing if the trip is worth takingto the destination !DecadesOfGaming

Ah, but the journey itself is the point, not the destination. The means to the end is the end in and of itself.

:P

Yeah, they should. A reviewer should have played through the single-player portion a couple times, on a couple difficulties, and put some serious hours into the multiplayer. The more someone knows about a game, the better a review will be. A reviewer should also be knowledgeable about a game's genre, and if they're not, they should say so up front.

Yeah, they should. A reviewer should have played through the single-player portion a couple times, on a couple difficulties, and put some serious hours into the multiplayer. The more someone knows about a game, the better a review will be. A reviewer should also be knowledgeable about a game's genre, and if they're not, they should say so up front.

Palantas

[QUOTE="I"]

A reviewer should have played through the single-player portion a couple times, on a couple difficulties, and put some serious hours into the multiplayer.

muthsera666

What about games like Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3 and similar titles? Games that take upwards of 100 hours to go through the quests and so forth. Reviewers typically like to issue reviews in a timely fashion for the consumer. There is a tension there that I personally don't know how to recommend to resolve. I'm just wondering if you feel the same way about very long games.

To give an accurate picture of a lengthy game like the ones you mention, a reviewer needs to experience a large portion of its content. A quick run-through of Oblivion won't give you a feel for the game's nuances, like how the level scaling affects non-combat character builds, or how rewarding being in charge of a guild is. I don't play MMOs, but I imagine they're even more troublesome and time-consuming to review.

When it comes to site like GameSpot getting their reviews out at or soon after release...I'm not sure how to resolve that either. Sites could do two reviews on major games. You'd have your initial review, and a couple weeks later, you'd get a second review, exhaustively analyzing single-player content, and looking at how the community's developing in a multiplayer game. The problem with this is that it would essentially double reviewers' workloads for a level of in-depth analysis that the general gaming public really doesn't give a damn about. People who want to buy a game right when it comes out probably just have to deal with the fact that reviews, even the most professional ones, may be incapable of telling the whole story.

A game is completed as long as the final credits roll. It's that simple. You can't expect reviewers or others to complete games 100%. That's just not fair, and it isn't in everyone's skillset. I've finished Fallout 3 and played it for about 56 hours. Finishing all the missions won't change the 8.0 I gave it (for more details, read my review). If you've already lost interest in the game, playing it any more won't change it much. Also, as many have said, games like Superman 64 would never have been reviewed otherwise.

I don't think they should have to play the game all the way through, just most of the way through. Playing the game most of the way through should be enough to learn about graphics, sound, gameplay, control and to get a pretty good grip on the story, which is important for writing a review. For a reviewer, I don't think the ending is really that important because they won't really be talking about it in the review, anyway. Otherwise they'd be spoiling the game for people who haven't played it yet.

It's interesting you mention Oblivion. Oblivion's a game that gives a terrific first impression. You've got that wonderfully clever title screen with the "OblIVion," you get the cutscenes with Patrick Stewart's five minutes of voicework, then you're set loose into this huge, virtual high fantasy world. Everything seems great. You have to put some serious time into that game before you start seeing problems with it. (I could detail those here, but that's off topic for this thread.)

Oblivion got some very high marks from reviewers, including Greg Kasavin here on GameSpot. (In GameSpot score, Oblivion beats Diablo II, Baldur's Gate II, and Fallout; it ties the original Diablo.) GameSpot's and other reviews seem oblivious to Oblivion's problems. I theorize that's because, unlike me, the authors of these reviews didn't (couldn't) spend hundreds of hours playing the game before they formulated a definitive opinion. Like you said, there doesn't really seem to be a solution to this.

Alternatively, I could be way off base in this example. Oblivion could just be one of the greatest RPGs of all time, and I might just be really picky.

It's interesting you mention Oblivion. Oblivion's a game that gives a terrific first impression. You've got that wonderfully clever title screen with the "OblIVion," you get the cutscenes with Patrick Stewart's five minutes of voicework, then you're set loose into this huge, virtual high fantasy world. Everything seems great. You have to put some serious time into that game before you start seeing problems with it. (I could detail those here, but that's off topic for this thread.)

Oblivion got some very high marks from reviewers, including Greg Kasavin here on GameSpot. (In GameSpot score, Oblivion beats Diablo II, Baldur's Gate II, and Fallout; it ties the original Diablo.) GameSpot's and other reviews seem oblivious to Oblivion's problems. I theorize that's because, unlike me, the authors of these reviews didn't (couldn't) spend hundreds of hours playing the game before they formulated a definitive opinion. Like you said, there doesn't really seem to be a solution to this.

Alternatively, I could be way off base in this example. Oblivion could just be one of the greatest RPGs of all time, and I might just be really picky.

Palantas

Yes, yes, yes! I despise when people have an unformed opinion about a product, and that is what not playing a game to completetion is. If you didn't play online, I'll let that slide if you mention it. But it is my honest opinion everyone should post their gamercard when reviewing (if it's a 360 game). Put up or shut up.

immortality20

[QUOTE="immortality20"]

Yes, yes, yes! I despise when people have an unformed opinion about a product, and that is what not playing a game to completetion is. If you didn't play online, I'll let that slide if you mention it. But it is my honest opinion everyone should post their gamercard when reviewing (if it's a 360 game). Put up or shut up.

BuryMe

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="immortality20"]

Yes, yes, yes! I despise when people have an unformed opinion about a product, and that is what not playing a game to completetion is. If you didn't play online, I'll let that slide if you mention it. But it is my honest opinion everyone should post their gamercard when reviewing (if it's a 360 game). Put up or shut up.

muthsera666

A review doesn't need to cover every single aspect of a game. It should just tell us what overall kind of experience we can expect. ever minute deatil, including things like achievements, don't need to be included IMO

[QUOTE="immortality20"]

Yes, yes, yes! I despise when people have an unformed opinion about a product, and that is what not playing a game to completetion is. If you didn't play online, I'll let that slide if you mention it. But it is my honest opinion everyone should post their gamercard when reviewing (if it's a 360 game). Put up or shut up.

BuryMe

why should they need to do that? unless the review is focusing solely on how much fun it is to get achievements, i don't see a point in mentioning it at all

I think you missed the point here. Viewing a person's achievements in a game will usually give a certain picture of whata person did or did not do in a game. Examples: Reviewer completed certain questlines in an RPG. Reviewer beat a shooter on the hardest difficulty.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="immortality20"]

Yes, yes, yes! I despise when people have an unformed opinion about a product, and that is what not playing a game to completetion is. If you didn't play online, I'll let that slide if you mention it. But it is my honest opinion everyone should post their gamercard when reviewing (if it's a 360 game). Put up or shut up.

Palantas

i don't see why they would need to prove that in the review. if it really is important, the could simply say that they did the certain parts

BuryMe

If it is really important or not is the question of this thread. Obviously some people think that it is. If it is important that a reviewer thoroughly play through a game, achievements will prove that. I don't see how this could possibly be a bad idea.

Ideally, finishing the game would be the best thing. I just wonder how it's going to work with a long RPG though.

You can't learn everything about a game, or fully appreciate a game by only going through it once. If reviewers were not always a in a hurry to get their review done first they could take the time and write what they really think, not the same old cliche garbage. It would also be nice if they reviewed games that they WANTED To review, instead of whatever the newest thing is.

My problem isn't whether or not the reviewer has played the entire game or not, but when they rate negatively on some aspects of the game, and when the customers finally play they have no problem with it as if the reviewer really wasn't skilled at the game.

I'd enjoy much more if each review had maybe three reviewers at least and they all gave their collective opinion on it. That way there's hopefully no bias, and there's a few different skill levels, so nothing gets rated poorly for bad reasons.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

i don't see why they would need to prove that in the review. if it really is important, the could simply say that they did the certain parts

If it is really important or not is the question of this thread. Obviously some people think that it is. If it is important that a reviewer thoroughly play through a game, achievements will prove that. I don't see how this could possibly be a bad idea.

If someone has an achievement for an arbitrarily high number of online kills, then he's probably spent some time in the game's deathmatch, and should be qualified to talk about it. Likewise, if someone's got the "Beat the game on Legendary/Veteran/Insane" achievement, he's obviously been thorough in single-player. Achievements are good for calling out bull*****ers. Just yesterday on the 360 forum, some guy was claiming that Left 4 Dead on Expert wasn't that difficult, when a quick look at his Gamercard revealed he hadn't beat any campaign on that difficulty.

I said post your gamercard so you can prove you beat main storyline. PennyArcade had this awhile ago too about Assassain's Creed, saying reviewers never finished the game. Just my opinion.

I said post your gamercard so you can prove you beat main storyline. PennyArcade had this awhile ago too about Assassain's Creed, saying reviewers never finished the game. Just my opinion.

immortality20