Should Reviewers have to finish the games they play?

Yes. They should.

[QUOTE="tagyhag"]Definitely. The Darkness was a 7/10 until the ending which turned it into a 8.5/10Fried_Shrimp

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

As for my own view, game reviews suck and they especially suck because the reviewers will not tell it like it is. If the reviewer does not want to play more than 5 hours because the first 5 hours suck, I would rather him or her tell me that than play the rest, conclude it sucks and say the game sucks as a whole. The first is way more honest even if its "unfair" because I as a consumer am not going to play 15 hours of suck if the first 5 hours were complete suck. And no, you don't need to finish a game to write a good review, that's not accurtae at all.

Snagal123

There are reviewers like that, just not from the major sites or mags.

Sure but I am talking anout major sites and mags. No one reads the small guys but people like us on gaming forums who a more than capable of expressing our opinions even before those reviews are found. To the main site and mags, can they give a good view without playing the whole game? Sure. will they ever tell me how they truly felt? No, which when you have to entire gaming audience reading you is far more misleading than not finishing your game imo.

Actually wat I think is that its better to finish a game completly in order to state one's opinion or write reviews/blogs.

It dosn't matter if u complete in easy mode but wat I feel is that atleast the reviewer will get the general idea of the Game...(the flow,in depth-story,visual dept. sound design etc..etc..)

U know some of the games this gen. really have a great pace during the ending level.....So I don't want the reviewer to judge the game without completing it.

CHEERS!

You know that the job of a review is to tell you the opinion of the reviewer on what they played from an objective view right? If I don't finish a 40 hour RPG because the first 20 hours suck and I tell the readers I didn't finish it because playing 20 hours of something that is not fun to get to 40 hours isn't worth it, that's completely fair. And you know that by meeting deadlines because you played 1 game to completion you're sacraficing the quality of everything else you had to work on right?

As for my own view, game reviews suck and they especially suck because the reviewers will not tell it like it is. If the reviewer does not want to play more than 5 hours because the first 5 hours suck, I would rather him or her tell me that than play the rest, conclude it sucks and say the game sucks as a whole. The first is way more honest even if its "unfair" because I as a consumer am not going to play 15 hours of suck if the first 5 hours were complete suck. And no, you don't need to finish a game to write a good review, that's not accurtae at all.

ActicEdge

Most RPG are heavy with story and if a reviewer can't finish the story, how can he expect me to take his review even seriously? And you also missed my point, which was that it is their job. Doing 20 hours of something that isn't fun is sometimes called job. You may not like it, but it is just something you have to do. If finishing one game means that they are sacrificing everything else, they need to organize better.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

You know that the job of a review is to tell you the opinion of the reviewer on what they played from an objective view right? If I don't finish a 40 hour RPG because the first 20 hours suck and I tell the readers I didn't finish it because playing 20 hours of something that is not fun to get to 40 hours isn't worth it, that's completely fair. And you know that by meeting deadlines because you played 1 game to completion you're sacraficing the quality of everything else you had to work on right?

As for my own view, game reviews suck and they especially suck because the reviewers will not tell it like it is. If the reviewer does not want to play more than 5 hours because the first 5 hours suck, I would rather him or her tell me that than play the rest, conclude it sucks and say the game sucks as a whole. The first is way more honest even if its "unfair" because I as a consumer am not going to play 15 hours of suck if the first 5 hours were complete suck. And no, you don't need to finish a game to write a good review, that's not accurtae at all.

Icarian

Most RPG are heavy with story and if a reviewer can't finish the story, how can he expect me to take his review even seriously? And you also missed my point, which was that it is their job. Doing 20 hours of something that isn't fun is sometimes called job. You may not like it, but it is just something you have to do. If finishing one game means that they are sacrificing everything else, they need to organize better.

you actually missed my point, I understand its a job you get paid to do, my point is, you're suspose to be adving people on the games you play, if you quite literally hate 20 hours of a game and don't want to finish it, would you want to subject anyone else to that? My point is if they play the whole thing and it gets better, isn't it still lacking the honesty in the fact that you only forced your way through the crap because you had to? To me, that is entirely not honest. And instead of saying, finishing one game means sacrificing everything like its not good organization. Just think about it. 40 hour main story. How do yo organize your 40 hour work week with a 40 hour game to play? Explain that to me (obviously it means work longer but seriously)

Thats why i think all reviewers should do like famitsu I mean like let 4 people review the game rather than just one so we get more than one opinion.

you actually missed my point, I understand its a job you get paid to do, my point is, you're suspose to be adving people on the games you play, if you quite literally hate 20 hours of a game and don't want to finish it, would you want to subject anyone else to that? My point is if they play the whole thing and it gets better, isn't it still lacking the honesty in the fact that you only forced your way through the crap because you had to? To me, that is entirely not honest. And instead of saying, finishing one game means sacrificing everything like its not good organization. Just think about it. 40 hour main story. How do yo organize your 40 hour work week with a 40 hour game to play? Explain that to me (obviously it means work longer but seriously)

ActicEdge

If one guy is reviewing a 40 hour long game, then someone else does the other things, like interviews, goes to game shows, writes news etc. That is what I meant by organize better. And that is why gamesites and mags have several employees and if their own people don't have enough time to review all games, they'll hire freelancers to do reviews.

I agree that a bad game is a bad game, but in many cases something you find not fun, someone else might find fun. Like Alpha Protocol for me, I like it and find it fun. Still most reviewers gave it bad reviews and scores, and I read those reviews, but I understood from them, that I might actually like the game. Even a negative review can make me buy a game if it's informative enough.

thye should play the game through twice b4 making reviews

no. i played twilight princess for 3 hours and knew i hated it. after i started having to play as the wolf and go in and out of the dark world i put it down and never wanted toplay another zelda again. and know the ugly new one won't change my mind.

kobraka1

In a perfect world, I would say yes. Yet I know game reviewers will probably take shortcuts regardless. I'd at least like to know if they did. It's understandable with games like Final Fantasy that could take forty hours or more to complete (story alone) but at least let me know if you haven't finished it. I'd rather have an honest review than a "thorough" one under the guise of giving me the whole picture. There's a lot of reviews that read very vague, almost impressions or half-tales of what the game is.

As long as the article is good, I couldn't care less about whether or not the authour finished the game. There are fewer and fewer games these days that can objectively be finished (or a least, objectively finished in a reasonable period of time), and even if you can objectively complete a game, the experience is so inherently subjective that whether or not you completed the game is relatively meaningless. I'd rather read a review by someone who had a deep understanding of the game but only played through 50% of the content than someone who slogged through the entire game in one sitting and utterly missed the point.

Should a reviewer be obligated to finish a game before they review, my opinion is no but if they aren't going to finish it, they best have the guts to tell me they didn't. They also should tell me the most important thing"WHY" they didn't finish it.

ActicEdge

I know that Kevin-V finishes a game before he publishes his reviews.

I would say that the game publishers have the ability to get review code to reviewers earlier than they do, so as to give them more time to get through the game.

On one hand, if a game is so bad the reviewer can't stand it, maybe they should pass it on to someone else and see if they feel the same way. But, at the same time, I've walked out on movies and told people that they were terrible, so I can understand why.

Also, a game like Oblivion, which is one of my favorites, is really about the side quests, at least imo. I didn't touch the story in that game, and I loved it. So, what do we mean by "finish" here?

I think for your typical 5-15 hour linear games, sure they should finish them. But with games that are more open, they should probably spend more time exploring and seeing how rich the world is rather than focus on the campaign.

The entire game should be judged, not just parts of it to be honest. That said I wouldn't blame a critic who wanted to rip a piece of **** a new one and only could tolerate the first half of it. jg4xchamp

That sounds like Yahtzee.

To answer the question, I don't think the whole game has to be played before a review is written. There's simply too many games out there that will require an extraordinary amount of time to complete. MMOs, sports games, fighters to list some examples.

GTA IV enough saidULTIMATEZWARRIO

what does gta4 have to do with anything?

[QUOTE="Silent_Grave"]

wow it doesnt seem fair to judge a game without finishing it..

thats like talking to a person for 15 minutes and completely judging the way they conduct themselves

at the very least they could say in which reviews they finished the game or have not..

ActicEdge

A lot of the time the reviewers also have to do other things besides actually write the game, they play more than one game at a time after all. The have previews and events to go to and stories to cover etc. Also, can we stop with the shallow comparisions, you can't judge a person in 15 minutes obviously but the generalquality of many games is pretty damn consistent.

but not all games are consistant...

for example ff13, uncharted 1&2 thers lots of changes mid game

its not really fair to review a game without finishing it, fine hows this for a comparison

wathcing the majority of a movie but missing out on the last half hour

the end really matters to the purchaser, the people the reviewers are writing for in the first place

imagine spending ur hard earned cash on a game that was strong till the last portion and then promptly sucked hard... which could have been avoided if the reviewer spent just a little more time on it

[QUOTE="kobraka1"]

no. i played twilight princess for 3 hours and knew i hated it. after i started having to play as the wolf and go in and out of the dark world i put it down and never wanted toplay another zelda again. and know the ugly new one won't change my mind.

Androvinus

enlighten me on this best moment. I finished that game and thought 8.8 was on the money.

[QUOTE="ULTIMATEZWARRIO"]GTA IV enough saidMario1331

what does gta4 have to do with anything?

enough said.

normally yes, the exceptions are: It is a game with no story or ending (thats a given), the game is broken, and can not be completed (happens).

Any game with any kind of story or path to an ending should indeed be finished, I doubt anyone could make a good judgement if they did not see ALL of the game, there have been more then a few cases where what the reviewers wrote were so far from the actural game that it was almost painful, playing half of a game, and you will NOT have seen everything the game has to offer, More then likely You would miss atleast 1/3 of a games mechanics and story.

It is just sloppy work. I would not pay a plumber to begin fixing my toilet and leave it as if, if he is content with that it works on some basic level either.

i always laugh about yahtzee not finishing reviews on zero punctuation... but i just cant blame him for not wanting to finish FF13... ugh.

The entire game should be played including any multiplayer modes before a final judgement is passed on a game by any reviewer.

No. Why should anyone be forced to sit through something they don't enjoy? A review is an analysis of enjoyment, and if the reviewer doesn't enjoy it, that will reflect in the review and score. They should at least give it a chance... but they shouldn't have to finish it to get a fair idea what the game is about.

I think review mediums should just drop scores altogether, and base their reviews solely on enjoyment of the reviewer to give proper context to the reader... instead of this illusion of "objectivism" all these sites and magazines try to pursue.

[QUOTE="Silent_Grave"]

wow it doesnt seem fair to judge a game without finishing it..

thats like talking to a person for 15 minutes and completely judging the way they conduct themselves

at the very least they could say in which reviews they finished the game or have not..

ActicEdge

A lot of the time the reviewers also have to do other things besides actually write the game, they play more than one game at a time after all. The have previews and events to go to and stories to cover etc. Also, can we stop with the shallow comparisions, you can't judge a person in 15 minutes obviously but the generalquality of many games is pretty damn consistent.

Yes

Yes they get paid to review games so they shouldn't do a half-ass job. Unless they have a good reason for it (game being unfinishable, ultra hard, too boring) but they should definitely state that in the review then.

Unless the game is an mmo, reviewers should indeed finish the whole thing. If the game is an mmo....well in that case reviewers usually get a high level toon from the dev, if not play atleast till the middle of the lvl cap.

You can more or less judge a game after 4 or 5 hours. Sometimes they pick up after that, very few change tack though. A great game will never feel like a chore so if you don't enjoy the first 5 hours chances are its not any good.

Reviewers have a hard enough time without having to wait 100 hours to complete a JRPG or explore all the options in a strategy game. Some people have really unrealistic requests. I recall many people saying that Final Fantasy XIII picked up after the first, 20 hours. Well, it deserves to be slated then. If it requires people to play the game for 20 hours in boredom, or worse considering the ridiculous and whiny story, it isn't good.

You can more or less judge a game after 4 or 5 hours. Sometimes they pick up after that, very few change tack though. A great game will never feel like a chore so if you don't enjoy the first 5 hours chances are its not any good.

Reviewers have a hard enough time without having to wait 100 hours to complete a JRPG or explore all the options in a strategy game. Some people have really unrealistic requests. I recall many people saying that Final Fantasy XIII picked up after the first, 20 hours. Well, it deserves to be slated then. If it requires people to play the game for 20 hours in boredom, or worse considering the ridiculous and whiny story, it isn't good.

Chemical_Viking

I think the only games you truly have to finish before giving a review would be RPG games but games like shooters or action, adventure, fightersand sandbox i think you can review it after a few hours of play.

Depends.

Things like Total War i can forgive for not finishing.

Any game which has a story should be finished, i mean alot of games are less than 10 hours these days, if they can't be bothered to finish them then they shouldn't be reviewing games. Its like a movie reviewer reviewing a film based off the first half hour, its sloppy and lazy.

Snagal123

It would be impossible to do that, but any story driven game at all needs to be played to the end

I don't think a review should be posted without completing the game unless some crippling technical issue prevented the reviewer from finishing. On the other hand, I have nothing against the idea of publishing a story about the game in which the reviewer talks about his experience with it and explains why he didn't complete it for review.

i don't think so, if i'm not having fun with a game in the first half i don't endure it to see if the second half is better

even when people tell me ffxiii gets better after 20 hours, i'm like thats 20 hours of wasted time to began with, **** it

I actually think it doesn't matter. You will know around half-way through a game if it sucks or not: if the gameplay is bad or the story isn't picking up. Just because the final boss fight might be super awesome doesn't warrant a great change in the score. We don't want to pay for games when the most part of it sucks.

i don't think so, if i'm not having fun with a game in the first half i don't endure it to see if the second half is better

even when people tell me ffxiii gets better after 20 hours, i'm like thats 20 hours of wasted time to began with, **** it

savagetwinkie

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]

i don't think so, if i'm not having fun with a game in the first half i don't endure it to see if the second half is better

even when people tell me ffxiii gets better after 20 hours, i'm like thats 20 hours of wasted time to began with, **** it

BodyElite

Depends.

Things like Total War i can forgive for not finishing.

Any game which has a story should be finished, i mean alot of games are less than 10 hours these days, if they can't be bothered to finish them then they shouldn't be reviewing games. Its like a movie reviewer reviewing a film based off the first half hour, its sloppy and lazy.

Snagal123