do game reviewers have to finish a game before reviewing it?
before you screech about it I think it's a legitimate question. there are some reviewers that only have a week to two weeks to finish a game. If the game they're playing is your average COD slop then easy peasy. However if it's an incredibly long game, let's say the next elder scrolls game do they have to finish it to give a take on it?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
>do game reviewers have to finish a game before reviewing it?
definetely yes , you need to see all aspects of the game to do a serious review , even if that means taking hrs playing a game you find incredibly shitty
I think if a reviewer played half of fallout 4 they obviously wouldn't be able to give you a detailed explanation or opinion on the story but they would definitely be able to tell you the gameplay characters controls etc. Which could definitely map onto your gaming experience. I'll reiterate in a lot of professional game reviewing a week after release is the most significant time frame you have for significant audience capture. unless you're like a YouTuber and you want to be autistic about covering the game in particular in which case I guess that's that person's prerogative to take as long as they want
hopefully no moronation.
a suspicious blurry crop of a cartoon, i wonder what is going to happen to this thread
He misses too many things tbh, doubt he'll appear.
did /g tards make some backdoor plugin again?
its a leebait/leecord image
I don't know what autism is going on here but I literally just decided to crop out the rest of Peter's family from that scene in order to make the point because I find the picture funny since he's giving a unpopular descenting opinion
also he's on Ganker More than he is here
most reviews unironically spend 1-3 hours max on a game
if a game doesn't get good within the first 3 hours then it's not worth my time
I don't like JRPGs either
absolutely not
I agree because if this place had to actually finish the games they b***h about then they would literally have nothing to complain over
If we're talking about if you work in a narrow industry where you only get two weeks to review a game I'd rather just go independent and do other work to subsidize my income.
As for whether you have to finish a game purely because of how bad it is. It's hard to say, but I'd probably say yes. Critics often have to consume media, food ect that they don't like and the same should be held accountable for game critics if you want to be held to the same standard. If it is your job there are going to be aspects you don't like but that's why you get paid for the work you do.
well for people who depend on reviewing for their livelihoods I wouldn't begrudge them if they only managed to finish half. If we want to look at YouTubers for example or someone who's like a mix between the two Yahtzee is a good example. I can't speak for others but I find his insight on gaming poignant and I appreciate the way he articulates himself in his videos and he usually hammers on points that I typically agree with if I've played the game myself. Yahtzee will admit that he doesn't finish every game he reviews but any of the stuff he's complained about in a game that I've played I can still see where he's coming from. so him not finishing it doesn't really change much.
There are games like The Outer Worlds and Elden Ring that drop in quality once you near the end. For that reason alone I would say yes, it'd be nice if reviewers finished the game before writing anything down.
Of course, they only get such a small amount of time to review a game because it prevents them from doing actual deep analysis, and journalists think that's fine as long as they can obtain games early and get those day 1 review clicks, so it's unlikely that anything will change.
I feel as though the baseline goal for any reviewer is to give some general thoughts about the material. in regards to games that means commenting on the gameplay maybe the graphics controls etc at the stuff you could notice immediately within an hour. anything substantial like the plot or the characters or pacing requires finishing or at least getting through a significant portion of the game.
Yes, and that's how you end up with so many shallow reviews that all read the same. I get it, the short amount of time they have to both play a game and write a review is short, but it does mean game reviews are by and large disposable.
they should at least have some sort of tool to skip forwards through the game if they're on a tight deadline, but yes, they should
well what difference does that make if they're skipping it though?
shallow sure but if it's informative then I don't really see a problem. game reviews are pretty disposable but eh
>if it's informative then I don't really see a problem
they don't tell you much more that the description on the game's site tells you. rarely do they actually give any criticism or feedback that has value
I think the average IGN review covers the gameplay and mechanics pretty well which is the meat and potatoes of the game. Sometimes the characters and plot but that's the part people care about the least.
If you're a YouTuber sure but that's because they like the creator. The game is secondary in most of those cases
You should not be allowed to review a game on steam if you didn't play atleast 90 minutes.
You should not be allowed to review a game on steam, if you havent played it in the last 2 weeks.
I am right
There is no debate
What was the game where the reviewer b***hed about the ending and it turned out he played the game on the easiest difficulty that doesn't give you the last level?
PixelJunk.
this is why game reviews, near the release date, are garbage. i find reviews more compelling after the game has been out for a few months or even longer, so that its had time to soak in.
then you lose out on the possible audience capture though
Eh, YouTubers like MatthewMatosis and writers like Shamus Young (RIP) prove there is an audience for long, in-depth analysis and critique months or even years after a game has come out.
>play the game for 600!! hours before it even comes out
>give it an 8.5/10 rating
>game comes out
>its utter dogshit
>community in flames
>backpaddle and make dozens of videos how betrayed you feel and how shit the game is
One of my favourites, I chuckle everytime I remember this
yeah you're actually allowed to call the police if a reviewer didn't finish the game. some have a weird loophole like IGN is registered in Estonia so they get away with it.
everyone who says Yes is a snoy because the modern playstation game is a 5 to 15 hour movie game with lots of emotional story telling (easy points) and easier to review than a mammoth game like BG3, TOTK, Elden Ring etc etc
You don't review a book and movie by reading/watching half of it.
are we just going to pretend that games are not intrinsically different from film / books.
you don't have to review how it feels to turn the pages of a book nor do you have to talk about the gameplay of a film. even so debatably you could also review a movie without finishing it so long as you're up front with it. YMS did it but people got moronic over it
Yes. Sometimes the beginning is amazing but the game is literally unfinished and gets a 9/10.
>MGS V TPP
They're not game reviewers.
They're previewers, in reality, shills if you will.
Their entire industry depends on getting day 1 clicks after an embargo is over, this requires them to kiss the ass of the developer to get a journo copy of the game, at which point they need to invest enough time to write a 200 word article on why the game is good and why you should buy it, the only time this doesn't happen is when the developer doesn't have clout and money to throw around. This has been happening in the industry for decades now, like the first I heard of this happening was during the Kane and Lynch 2 shit.
There are no standards for games journalism, stop clicking on their moronic articles, because thats how they get paid.
It wasn't always like that.
remember all the controversy about 8.8? times sure have changed
>do game reviewers have to finish a game
Lol, they don't even play them.
Dunno, but the fact the most of them will never tell their gamertag/or block you of seeing time their profile is suspicious