Days Gone actor suggest some reviewers didn't finish the game, posted misleading reviews

There is nothing requiring a reviewer to "finish" a game in order to review it. It is also a fact that you don't need to finish a game to give an assessment of the game. It is that simple. You are free to have an opinion that differs from this, but don't act as if your opinion is a reflection of reality.

The reality is those are the expectations of a competent reviewer. If they are not finishing games, then they are shit at their jobs. They are not doing their homework/research and can not be trusted to deliver a proper review. It is neither fair to the product creator or to the readers to have such a half-ass effort for the review.

I don't know what they're being petty about, the game is already reviewing better that it did on PS4.

@Pedro: I don't agree, honestly. If you are reviewing a game like Age of Empires or Civilization - it never "ends" so you can't "finish it", sure. But if you are reviewing a narrative game, I definitely think you need to finish it.

Here's why: plenty of games DO have good stories and mechanics earlier on, and then just go off the rails weird, get stupid repetitive, or reveal that all the "choices" you made and were excited about don't do jack shit, or.... and you need to power through to the end to know this. A game could easily go from an "8" to a "6" if the later half drags on or takes a nosedive. Likewise, some games really take time to warm up, and I think that warrants a lower evaluation typically either way, BUT they can still redeem themselves from "this blows" to "actually, not bad in the end!" The reader of the review learns a lot from that information and can make a choice about whether to bother

Yeah. I mean, you can't review a movie without finishing it, so why review a movie game without finishing it?

Bro nobody is agreeing with you its like 5:1 people against your take on this on here. Stop saying reality your in de-reality here pal.

And you are the one telling me that i troll🤗Hypocrite sheep detected.

The point I am arguing is you don't need to for a review, for it is not required. I am aware that there are many games that start strong and end on a dud. I have played many of them. And it is clear that the reviewer didn't play the game all the way through to realize what was a great first 5 hours turns out to be crap in the last 10 hours. This is how it has been and will continue. The majority of gamers don't complete games and these reviews would work for the majority of gamers. If you or anyone require the reviewer to finish the narrative game, you can easily find a reviewer that did. But, as I have stated before, it is not required and that is not going to change. We got to stop pretending that reviews not opinion pieces.

The target audience matters. Since most gamers don't finish games, these reviews would serve its purpose. The first x amount of hours which is what most will play. This common practice can be favorable or unfavorable to the developer. Some developers are fully aware of this and they will design their games with this in mind. We have to remember that what transpires on this forum is not a reflection of the general gaming populous. Reviewers should disclosed the level of completion but because there is no standards (something that I have argued about tirelessly) they don't need to and there is no expectation for this. Reviews will continue to be largely just opinion pieces that gamers use to justify or invalidate a game.

I feel you just made my case - you just highlighted that you need to spend your money and waste your time to find out the reviewer was wrong, and just illustrated a good reason why many gamers wouldn't finish the game

We can make more informed decisions when the reviewer has finished the game. Reviews aren't "required" period - the argument, as I see it, is what should our expectation be for them when they are written.

i haven't finished days gone but i've sunk enough time into it to feel confident i'm qualified to give an opinion on it. there's no one size fits all answer to this.

hl2's not a great example. the first few hours are the worst, mainly spent messing about on that awkwardly controlled motor boat. when you get the gravity gun that's just before ravenholm and when the game really kicks off. if you'd quit around that point based on what you'd seen so far, you'd be missing out on some of the best missions and level design, well ever

If you're a professional game reviewer, it's my expectation that you review the game in full. There have been plenty of times when a game starts slow and gets better over time. Death Stranding is a great example.

@Pedro: Whether or not a player will finish a game or not is up to the player. The review should be of the full game and be providing the information for all types of players. I agree that there should be a disclosure/disclaimer for when a reviewer has half-assed it. That way the reader/viewer can choose whether to take the review seriously or not and not waste their time.

That is an extremely premature conclusion as to why gamers wouldn't finish a game. 🤷‍♀️

I would argue that we may be able to make a more informed decision when the reviewer finishes the game. It all depends on the review itself. For I have read and watched reviews in which the reviewer completed the game and only talks about things they like such as characters and other non gaming elements. At the end of the review I knew very little about the actual game but it was positively rated.

Your last sentence confuses me. 🤔

What is review the game in full? Finishing the main campaign? Getting platinum? Finishing every story branch and seeing every ending? Participating in every gameplay element of the game?

They say it takes one to know one. 🙃

In the same manner I asked Solid, what is half assed? Not finishing the campaign? Not seeing every ending? No participating in everything the game has to offer? What is the threshold? Whatever the threshold is, it would be your threshold. These are all personal takes on what constitutes a valid review. I am not saying you can't have these personal expectations but these personal expectations are not standard and just, well personal.

@Pedro: Finish the campaign as a minimum and at least dabble into other modes/side missions, etc. to gauge their quality. The more in-depth the reviewer can be, the better.

Which is fine and you should look for reviewers that meet your specifications. Fortunately, you can find them. 😊

If you're playing a game like Days Gone which is a story driven action adventure game, you're reviewing the game on the campaign. What good is it if they just give you a review of the first 5 hours? Like someone here said, those are impressions, not a review.

.... and unfortunately you can find reviewers that half-ass it too. That is what the article was about... calling out the half-assers. hehe :)

In your opinion it is not a review and you are free to feel that way. 😊

The only thing that matters is if the reviewer discloses the context of the review.

I completed the core game/story on normal difficulty using the fighter class character. I completed about 25% of the side missions. It took me 12 hours. I also messed around with the magic user character for a few hours and that seemed fun too.

It is important that they disclose honest details like those above, so that the reader has some context.

Played it around ten hours on the PlayStation and the game is crap...

Exactly dude I always read reviews of the people with the most hours in the game on steam. Pedro s like na bro i go with the gu with 2 hours no dude i go with the guy 1000 hours+ and knows what hes doing with the game on the reviews anyone can do it but you should have the most hours you can during a real review for website if your just steam guy there doing better reviews than these sites cause they got more hours and experience in the game

@Juub1990:If you don't like Deezer already, you might as well stop playing now, because you are going to look at him for the next 40 hours or so.

In other news: water is wet.

Nintendo must be trolls as well. They sell cardboard afterall. Who does that?

Journos these days only care about muh POC and muh wahmen

Most game "reviewers" aren't capable of beating games. This was a Polygon reviewer playing Doom

Hopefully Sony will release it as part of Play At Home so I can get it for free.

It's already free on the PS5 PS+ collection.

@Pedro: always contributing to the threads... Not.

ITT: maybe, maybe not. I really don't think the game deserves all the bashing it received.

@NathanDrakeSwag: don't have or want a PS5.

You are always contributing so much with so many words.😊

Dell

Oh, and Google

Are they selling them to kids, tho? No. Nobody goes this low.

Lego sells dangerous items to children. That's far worse. And Monster tries to sell energy drinks to them!

fk off! i loved mah legos when i was a kid. I do agree on Monster/RedBull/Gfuel and all of this cancer, tho.

Until you step on it ):

@techhog89: Oh Lord man, I hate going in my kids' rooms.

OK so maybe HL2 is the exception to the rule that proves the rule? I don't know.

I still stand by my comment though lol.

...I kind of liked the boat parts though...

The first quarter of the game was slow to be fair. Then it just got better and better

Whether it's true or not, nothing positive comes from complaints like this. Let it go and move on.

True there is no law saying a reviewer has to experience every aspect of a game but I think everyone can agree that one should specify what they did experience. We do it amongst our friends naturally. If a movie was garbage we say so and when our friends ask how far we got in the movie we are upfront about it whether it be the first 5 minutes or the whole thing. If a reviewer wasn’t able to experience certain things in the game that others have they should say as much. It goes without saying that when you say “I saw that movie” or “I played this game” that you played/watched most if it or all of it unless you say otherwise.

If you write a review of Days Gone without mentioning the horde mechanic that is pretty lame. Those fights were clearly the highlight of the game.

@techhog89: Lego sells dangerous toys to children...wtf kinda hippy woke BS is that?