PressSpotting: Are You Done With That Game?

  • By GS_News, GameSpot
  • Posted Jul 13, 2008 12:12 pm PT

In a perfect world, every game reviewer would be able to play every game to completion before crafting a thorough and well-researched critique of the gameplay and narrative. Of course, in a perfect world every game would be perfect, so there would be no need for reviewers at all. Unfortunately, we...

In a perfect world, every game reviewer would be able to play every game to completion before crafting a thorough and well-researched critique of the gameplay and narrative. Of course, in a perfect world every game would be perfect, so there would be no need for reviewers at all. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world, and practically every professional reviewer admits to falling short of the ideal, play-it-to-the-finish standard at one time or another. The reasons behind these lapses range from the practical to the personal.

"When you reach a point where you know there's nothing that a game can do to change your buying recommendation, I'd argue it's fair to mark it from there," says freelancer Kieron Gillen. "If a game has been awful for 10 hours--h***, even less--there's no way you can recommend it. It is a bad game." Gillen also argues that the opposite is true: "If a game has been excellently entertaining for, say, 20 hours...I'd say you could recommend it strongly. If you can say 'If the game stopped at this point, I'd still give it a rave review,' you can be justified in doing exactly that."

Of course, not everyone agrees with that take on things. "Years ago, Halo 2 hooked me with smooth controls, intense battles, an excellent multiplayer system, and all that good stuff, but the horrible ending soured every experience that came before," said freelancer Brian Rowe. "Had I only played 99.9 percent of the way through Halo 2, my opinion would have been vastly different. Just because a game begins on a high note does not mean that the developers can maintain that pace through to the end."

Although standards vary for different outlets, most American specialist magazines and Web sites insist that their reviews be based on a full playthrough of a game. "There's a real need for us to strive to give readers a definitive take," says Wired's Chris Baker. "A game is a work of art and a piece of software, and it demands to be addressed in depth on both of those levels in our criticism." That said, Baker admits that this sort of comprehensive coverage is not always possible. "Wired magazine has a three-month lead time, so getting access to final code is incredibly difficult... Given the nature of games, and given issues of timeliness and access, I think that there has to be room for other sorts of coverage that don't aspire to be an exhaustive critique."

New reviewers learn quickly to make the most out of situations in which the game is long and the deadline is short. "When you're handed a game rated at 40-plus hours, and you only have two days to get the job done, you do the best that you can and leave it at that," says Rowe. "It's not the optimal situation, but reviewing games is a business. It doesn't matter if your writing skills make Hemingway look like a talentless hack. If you can't get a review published in a timely fashion, the readers are going to move elsewhere. Gamers have money to spend and they don't want to wait until next week to find out how to spend it."

Many reviewers cite epic, sprawling role-playing games such as The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion as the bane of their tight schedules. "I'd much rather knock out three or four action games than spend the same amount of time on one RPG," said veteran GameCritics reviewer Brad Gallaway. "Since story and characterization are such an integral part of the RPG experience, they're games that usually demand being played to completion in order to be discussed with any authority... It's just not time- or cost-effective." Freelancer Raymond Padilla agrees that the economics behind reviewing make RPGs a tough sell. "If you have a choice between [reviewing] a mainstream action game and a Japanese RPG--neither of which you're too interested in personally--you'd be an idiot to take the RPG."

Should readers be aware if and when a review is based on an incomplete playthrough? Many reviewers seem to think so. "The launch of Grand Theft Auto IV should be a boon to reviewers," said freelancer Chris Dahlen. "Most of the critics admitted they didn't, and couldn't, finish the game before they went to print. While some of the reviews were premature and uncritical, the whole blitz raised the reader's awareness of the fact that meeting a deadline while finishing 40-plus, or 100-plus hour game story is impossible--and anyone who tries would skim over everything that makes the game worth playing in the first place."

But others don't think that the amount of time spent by the reviewer is vital information. "I don't tell readers when I don't finish a game," freelancer Rowe said. "I know it might sound shady, but I guarantee that it's standard practice. If every reviewer started listing playtimes in reviews, readers would start flocking to whichever publication has the highest completion ratio, as opposed to the most worthwhile opinions."

Of course, this fast-and-loose attitude toward review completeness can lead to important omissions in a review. "There's been a number of times when something pops up in a game in the middle or at the end," says GameCritics' Gallaway, "and I'd say about half the time when I check other reviews to see if that same issue is mentioned, there's not a peep. I'm not pointing fingers, but the smart money would say that those reviews were written in the early 'honeymoon phase' that just about any game can provide. But, is a game good all the way through? That's the real question that a good reviewer should try to answer."

Nevertheless, some reviewers argue that there's no reason for a reviewer to finish a game when most readers aren't going to complete it either. "The last figures I saw for Half-Life 2: Episode 1 said that only 50 percent of the people who bought it completed it," says Gillen. "And that's on a game which lasted four hours. Even for the increasingly common 6- to 10-hour games, you wouldn't expect a completion rate [that's] any higher, let alone the 80-hour RPG epics. Hell, failure to complete [a game] doesn't even mean that a player dislikes the game--they can get distracted and move onto other things, but still love their time with the game."

"The normal state of gamers is to leave a game uncompleted," Gillen continued. "A reviewer doing likewise isn't the same as a book reviewer stopping halfway through."

[Editor's Note: It is GameSpot's policy to not review a game unless the reviewer has completely finished its main storyline. For more on our review policies, practices, and experiences, check out Under Review, the GameSpot Reviews Blog.]

For more about PressSpotting, check out the introductory column or peruse the PressSpotting Archive.

Kyle Orland is a freelance journalist specializing in video games and based out of Laurel, MD. He writes for a variety of outlets, as detailed on his personal site, and he's also the co-author of The Videogame Style Guide and Reference Manual. Orland's views do not necessarily reflect those of GameSpot.

Questions? Comments? Story ideas? Bitter invective? Send it to Kyle.

125 Comments

  • fazedjb

    Posted Jul 3, 2009 11:16 am PT

    hmm shouldn't a review come AFTER the event? you can't fully review a game if u dont play it thru

  • Labouskie

    Posted Apr 6, 2009 11:18 am PT

    GTA IV is a perfect example of this way of rating a game. It is a great game however I notice several glitches on this game which in my opinion a glitch takes away from a perfect score no matter how good the game is. In GTA IV every time I enter a gun shop it takes several seconds for the lights to come on and to me that is a glitch which in my opinion even a minor glitch like that should take away from a perfect score. Anyway my point is gamespot misled us consumers with GTA IV likely because the reviewer didnt completly review the game thus telling us GTA IV is a perfect game yet if you play the game you notice small glitches that should have taken away from a perfect score miss-leading us consumers. GTA IV is a great game 9.0 maybe but not a perfect 10 and to me that rating helps show why it is wrong to only kind of play a game for a review when gamers depend on reviews to help decide which games to spend their hard earned cash on.

  • Cody13_2012

    Posted Jan 18, 2009 8:33 am PT

    The completion rate of 50% amazes me. I have beaten all of my PS2 games except for Burnout 3, Odin Sphere, and FFXII. I just got a PS3 2 months ago and I have beat Skate (with nearly every side objective done), GRAW2, and the campaign to Battlefield BD. Is it really that hard to complete a game?

  • trax0r1990

    Posted Dec 4, 2008 1:52 pm PT

    You're hardly going to be able to give an all-round, full review if you haven't even completed the game that you're reviewing are you?

    It can be compared to the likes of film or music reviews, it's obvious that they don't last as long as games do, but you don't see Q, Rollings Stones or Mojo listening to 7 songs on a 12 track CD and thinking: "Oh God, this is awful, the rest is going to be just as shoddy!" They will ALWAYS give you a full review of the entire album. I've got to agree with TehPickle 100% too, there are definitely flaws in the 'completion' ethic - how are you meant to review an MMO or other games where there is no foreseeable 'end' to them - think The Sims.

    It's good to know that GameSpot have a completion policy anyway.

  • TehPickle

    Posted Oct 16, 2008 3:40 pm PT

    Would've been interesting to see what this guy has to say about MMOs. Since they arguably cannot be completed, and are ever-changing. I can't imagine a more nightmarish prospect that trying to write a review for, say...WoW etc.

  • leafdj

    Posted Oct 11, 2008 2:01 pm PT

    Well, as long as they put enough time on it.
    Too Human was hella fun.
    For the first level.

  • GonzoGuy

    Posted Aug 18, 2008 9:30 am PT

    Okay.
    Now who are the suckers who thought they finished every game?

  • residentzombie2

    Posted Aug 6, 2008 2:25 pm PT

    Give 2 reviews A "First Impression" review that stats the game is not fully reviewed yet witch well appease gamers who want the review NOW and then 3-5 days later post the 'FINAL REVIEW' of the game that is more indepth. Reviewers would love this since they don't have to have that final review done so quickly. Everybody wins

  • residentzombie2

    Posted Aug 6, 2008 2:06 pm PT

    The real issue with reviewers is honesty. The sales people and the reviewers must slash each others tires alot or get in fist fights almost every day (ok well that was maybe a little over doing it), but that is the tension that you can cut with a knife. The sales people rely on game publishers to buy ad space on their site (which is VERY expensive in the thousands of dollars) which pays for the sites employees and maintenance costs. Publishers are well aware that many gamers read reviews before spending $40-$60 on their game and therefor all the publishers have a vested interest in how their game got reviewed by the site they just paid thousands of dollars to for ad space. Sound familiar Gamespoters? Jeff Gerstmann R.I.P. Now we can argue that these things do or don't happen all day long. Bottom line is money is God for most and I'm sure alot of game reviewers are paid off by the website they work for to give favorable reviews to those publishers who heavily spend money for the sites web space advertisements. Simple way to end this though forbid publishers to buy these spaces and seek non-vested interest business to buy this space instead. i.e. MadKatz or other intustry companies who do not rely on reviews for maximize the sale of their products.

  • B-Rank

    Posted Aug 4, 2008 8:18 pm PT

    yeah, i can't blame reveiwers for quiting a game before beating it. You can often tell a bad game from the second level, or two hours of gameplay. Aone in the Dark sucked from the first 2 minutes. It never got better. Waste of money.

  • vahn93

    Posted Jul 30, 2008 7:11 pm PT

    im sorry GS, i always go to u first for all my info on a game, but for the one that has kept me playing for more than 50 hours, u only gave a 5/10

    can anyone say MONSTER HUNTER FREEDOM 2

    thankfully i was a fan of the series so i didnt really care about ur take on it, but for people who hear about it and are wondering if they should get it, the reviewer should have spent more time on it, its just my opinion so dont flame me for it

  • Vampiro_HuntT3R

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 5:42 am PT

    You don't have to play the complete game to judge it. You can play a game for few hours and you will know everything about the game. I mean, there are always these tutorials in the begining of the game. They tell you how to do things in that certain game. Tutorials include mostly those things which are newly introduced in that game. When you get to the 40% (At the most), you get to know everything about the game. I am not talking about how the story evolves, I'm saying that you get to know about the game play till then of that game. In the later 60% game, you just have to collect a lot of stuff to power yourself up and find as many hidden packages as possible and then there are a lot of side quests which are short but are fun. But Rating a game as 10/10 is not fair. I mean, I admit you can't think up of something better than that because you are just in love with that game, but it doesn't mean you go ahead and rate it 10/10. Because, it's just the begining of PS-3 games and you can't go ahead and rate every other PS-3 game 10/10. All the games are supposed to have great graphics and are supposed to have great game play, other wise, who would care to play them when there are a lot better than them? Rate it 9.34 or 9.54 or something like that but not 10/10 because by rating a game 10/10, you mean that no other game will come out that will have better storyline, game play and graphics than this game.

  • Hungry_bunny

    Posted Jul 21, 2008 10:04 am PT

    Disappointing but not surprising.

  • Megavideogamer

    Posted Jul 21, 2008 9:53 am PT

    Does anyone out there bother to finish all their games they buy/rent? No matter how Great or crappy they are? In my videogaming lifetime I only bothered to finish about 40% of all the games I've played. The rest end up on the **** it Pile" So I guess it is the same for reviewers of games. How many games can one play in a day anyway.......

  • kos1085

    Posted Jul 21, 2008 9:17 am PT

    There is not enough time in the world to finish every game before review. You would need a very huge staff and huge budget for overtime in order to accomplish this task. Reviewers are often playing 10+ games a week and you expect them to finish the game, sleep, have a life, plus write the review. That is an unrealistic expectation and is impossible.

  • gangsterjc

    Posted Jul 18, 2008 12:30 pm PT

    just rent it...simple as that

  • gangsterjc

    Posted Jul 18, 2008 12:30 pm PT

    just rent Tha **** easy!

  • Shadowsouled

    Posted Jul 17, 2008 7:15 pm PT

    Are there really people out there who rely on reviews to tell them weather or not to buy a game? Can't people think for themselves?

  • lettuceman44

    Posted Jul 17, 2008 12:28 pm PT

    Interesting

  • grambyte

    Posted Jul 17, 2008 5:07 am PT

    Well games are stacking up that's a fact. Finishing that many games that get released at once sometimes is a difficult task indeed.

  • necronaux

    Posted Jul 16, 2008 11:30 am PT

    I would like to see the reviewers start listing: How much of the game was finished; and How long it took to get to that point. What are they trying to hide and why? Be the first to review a game... if you blow the review, it wasn't really worth rushing it.

    Imagine reading a movie review from someone only watching the trailer, or walking out after 5 minutes...

  • Darkblyth

    Posted Jul 16, 2008 8:42 am PT

    never done with gta

  • ChickenHounk911

    Posted Jul 15, 2008 4:13 pm PT

    And here I thought something was wrong with me because I don't finish most of my games. I mean, I get all the latest and greatest but I either lose interest too fast, or I already bought the next game that came out! Now with a wife and kid, etc. I just don't have the time I used to have to play my beloved video games. I will however, pop in an oldie but goodie every now and then. I am normal!

    Oh and by the way, carbon247, do you know what "on average" means?

  • ChickenHounk911

    Posted Jul 15, 2008 4:10 pm PT

    And here I thought something was wrong with me because I don't finish most of my games. I mean, I get all the latest and greatest but I either lose interest too fast, or I already bought the next game that came out! Now with a wife and kid, etc. I just don't have the time I used to have to play my beloved video games. I will however, pop in an oldie but goodie every now and then. I am normal!

  • blueblur87

    Posted Jul 15, 2008 4:03 pm PT

    maybe this is why gamespot gives such low scores for monster hunter freedom, because they haven't played it thoroughly

  • uzdenus

    Posted Jul 15, 2008 12:24 pm PT

    Most reviews are written before finishing the game, I am a reviewer myself and i know how things work down here. There is always this clock ticking, reminding you of the deadline ahead. Speaking for myself, i do my best to foresee the curves and "breaking points" while i play the game. Besides, i work for a video games magazine so we usually have some extra time to play and get more from the game. Most reviewers are easily captured by the game's "honey moon" period and that causes an "over-rated population.". This usually occurs when an highly anticipated game is released. People out there expect to read that review as soon as possible and that the poor reviewers try to do their best within a limited time. That's why highly anticipated games such as GTA IV or Assassin's Creed etc got such high marks. Even the most good looking and attractive games might turn into average software pieces when you have a detailed look.

  • carbon247

    Posted Jul 15, 2008 9:18 am PT

    well out of 26 xbox360 games i have completed 15 so if you are saying that people only complete 30 odd % off there games then i have prooven you wrong overall the games i have completed none of the story lines stay the same they all have a good or bad curve in them.

  • TurambarGS

    Posted Jul 15, 2008 3:48 am PT

    That may be Gamespot's policy but it doesn't mean that they're not victims of publishing reviews during a honeymoon period anyway. Take GTA IV - there is NO way I would give that game a perfect 10. A perfect 10 means exactly that - it's perfect - and GTA IV whilst very, very good, is not perfect.

    How about FEAR? It was pretty obvious after three hours of gameplay that there was nothing else that the game was going to offer. You had met every enemy, used every ability over and over again and each battle went down the same way: see enemies, slow time, kill enemies, rinse and repeat. And yet GS scored it at 9.0 I think it was. Definitely not 9.0 material.

    And more recently still, GS have fixed their scores at 0.5 intervals, which lumps all games at a total of 21 possible scores but far less in practice, seeing as almost everything worth buying scores 6.5 or above. I.e. the scale of differentiation has diminished which isn't conducive to accurate reviews or good advice on which we have to base our buying.

    I'm not trying to overly criticise GS, cos on average I use this site a lot more than the others. I'm also sure that other review sites are guilty of doing the same and worse. What I AM getting at, is take reviews with a grain of salt - download a demo, watch it at a friends place or get some other way of seeing if the game is right for you before you spend your $100 on a game you might hate.

  • rynmls

    Posted Jul 14, 2008 8:47 pm PT

    all of the gamespot old reviewers were all gone, i hope the new reviewers who replaced them have the integrity to write reviews, hoping for your success...

  • amonshaw

    Posted Jul 14, 2008 8:21 pm PT

    Simple: Get start telling readers if the game's been completed or not as well as how long it's been played.

  • mikekearn

    Posted Jul 14, 2008 8:18 pm PT

    I had not known for certain that GameSpot always completes the main storyline of a game before allowing its review, but I figured it had to be something like that. They are usually one of the last places (of the big review sites) to do a review of any major game, and also have some of the best reviews. It's sort of common sense.

  • combatsoldier

    Posted Jul 14, 2008 7:56 pm PT

    hmm very interesting and good read.

  • HalfBak3dM0nkey

    Posted Jul 14, 2008 7:35 pm PT

    What the industry needs to address is biased, and often, "tipped" reviewers. In this day and age, it is not surprising to find reviewers who are forced to dish out the best looking score for their own pay, as well as their job. This not only defeats the purpose of reviewing a game, but has a positive aspect on sales through deceit. Most people generally look into more than one source of reviews, but some people merely glance at a particular source and then purchase the game.
    I advise most people to be aware of biased reviews, as well as the reviews funded by the developer and publisher of that particular release.

    *Looks at Jeff Gerstmann's dismissal from Gamespot for the honest, and "low" Kane and Lynch review.*

  • Zirocrath

    Posted Jul 14, 2008 7:05 pm PT

    I don't get it... why this note appeared as a Elder Scrolls IV update on my mailbox? I do hate when they do that. I own a ps2 and I receive updates apparently for ps2 when it's actually an article... why should I care? Anyway, it's not fault of the reviewer not having enough time to finish a game, but they know that before hand. So they should focus on the most important thing "does the game accomplish what it promises?" if it does, ok, then how? I don't want to hear the opinion of someone that already finished the game. Perhaps that person thinks that because the ending is amazing... but perhaps the first 2 or 3 hours are a total letdown. The best way to review a game is being objective and not start pointializing every little detail of a game. It is fun or not... I don't care about all the things you/your character can or cannot do, what really matters is how much fun you get from that.

  • majere613

    Posted Jul 14, 2008 4:02 pm PT

    Reading this, I can see why Dawn Of War: Soulstorm took so long to get reviewed, the single player campaign's quite a beast. Presumably we can look forward to the Disgaea 3 review some time next century
    Seriously though, I do feel reviewers should play through as much of the game as humanly possible, so the game doesn't 'do a Tortage' (and if you're an AoC player, you know what I mean) and/or run out of ideas halfway through. It's also very important for games that chuck a lot at you in the later stages and make the machine start to slow down, particularly console games. And it's entirely correct that you can't praise or condemn the plot of a game until you get to the end, even the most staid of plots can be redeemed by a twist of brilliance, or the most involved sunk by a cop-out.

  • taj7575

    Posted Jul 14, 2008 3:28 pm PT

    this is how i feel about rainbow six vegas 2. teribble sequel, it was for some reason sold for $60 when it should have been an 10 dollar expansion pack.

  • Jazzism

    Posted Jul 14, 2008 3:27 pm PT

    I prefer reading reader reviews cause they know what they're talking about and the scores are usually more accurate than the GS scores GS rates a game a 6 or 7 but the readers give it a 8 or 9... hmmmm why bother with the review to begin with GS.

    I walk into EB at any time and there's a ton of games being sold that aren't reviewed. I don't bother with GS reviews, I rather know the latest gaming news. That at least is fairly up to date.

  • ZippyDSMLee

    Posted Jul 14, 2008 3:15 pm PT

    And whats worse they use cheats to blow through a game and pad the score 2 points because they didn't have to sit through the real design of the game....

  • Proman84

    Posted Jul 14, 2008 12:59 pm PT

    You know, after this site's reviews of such games as "Shenmue" and "Boom Blox" I'm beginning to wonder if the reviewers even played those games at all.

  • nightshade_01

    Posted Jul 14, 2008 9:46 am PT

    I disagree with the whole "gamers don't want to wait to be told how to spend their money" bit. We're not all brainless impulse buyers, people. My money is valuable and I work very hard for it. I'd rather wait to read a good, thorough review and NOT WASTE SIXTY DOLLARS on something I'm not going to like. I want to make a rational, informed choice and that takes time.

    Finish the damn game.

  • naetss

    Posted Jul 14, 2008 9:28 am PT

    I can think of one case in specific where there was a noticeable disconnect between the quality of a game and the reviews and I think it was a result of insufficient time played. This happens quite a bit in sports titles like FIFA and NHL. These games tend to have pretty long learning curves, especially at the higher difficulty levels. I remember on specific year of the NHL franchise (think it was 2005) where it was getting glowing reviews for its graphics but no reviewer seemed to have picked up on the fact that, once you mastered the gameplay, it actually had some gamebreaking AI bugs. Most noticeably, it was impossible to connect on a pass and shoot a one-timer - a pretty key concept in a any sports title.

    A more recent game that had this kind of issue was Age of Conan. Again the reviews were largely positive, specifically citing the "complete quest voice-overs". Problem was that only the first 20 levels of Age of Conan were finished - get beyond that and the quality of the game dropped, the bugs went up, and the voice-overs completely disappeared.

  • s3NoXeRs3

    Posted Jul 14, 2008 9:21 am PT

    Well these scores shouldnt be anything more than a guidline or suggestion. And if you want them to beat the game inorder to put up a good review then you should not be lazy and play it your self. I dont agree with everything they say about games. Theres games on here that got a 6.4 that should of gotten higher but i just use that as a suggestion and im glad i did or i wouldnt have play any of thos games.[p=-

  • kineas454

    Posted Jul 14, 2008 8:37 am PT

    I don't think you need to complete a game to review it. The only thing you'd gain from completing it, is the full story of the game, which wouldn't be put in reviews anyway because they're spoilers. What if there's someone like me, who has never completed FF7 but has played it from the beginning to near-end several times? I think I'd be able to give it a good review becaose of the 100's of hours spent playing it, so what if I haven't completed it?

  • Jedo

    Posted Jul 14, 2008 8:22 am PT

    Always tried finishing the game to the end before reviewing it...I think I only failed twice in my entire game-rewiewing carreer, usually on games that were absolutely revolting/frustrating.

  • pourya_ahmadian

    Posted Jul 14, 2008 7:23 am PT

    I THINK SO;they are all pro and now what is the best;they finish them,then wirte about them;(but i think so about mgs4,it was 8.8,no pitty 10)

  • GSVale

    Posted Jul 14, 2008 4:48 am PT

    "I know it might sound shady, but I guarantee that it's standard practice. If every reviewer started listing play-times in reviews, readers would start flocking to whichever publication has the highest completion ratio, as opposed to the most worthwhile opinions."

    This is a pretty poor defense. How can you call an opinion worthwhile when you admit that you don't have all the facts? It seems to me that in comparison to someone who did finish games your opinion would always have less worth.

  • raverrozza

    Posted Jul 14, 2008 4:02 am PT

    "Still, some reviewers argue that there's no reason for a reviewer to finish a game when most readers aren't going to complete it either"

    that is a shameless excuse to allow these so called "reviewers" to justify them not doing their job properly at all.they are there to review the game in its entirety not just what they think people will play.

    "The last figures I saw for Half-Life 2: Episode 1 said that only 50 percent of the people who bought it completed it"

    what about the other 50percent you joke of man.

  • felshs

    Posted Jul 14, 2008 1:52 am PT

    I agree, some people just wanna throw their worthless opinion after they spent 1 hour in the game. However, sometime people choose not to complete or unable to complete a game. and i think those people should be allow to review but must state why they dont wanna complete it. From my experience, i could never beat Monster Hunter Freedom because the game design for multiplayer , and i was playing alone. You cant let one man do a 4 men jobs, its 1000 time harder.....you cant be a cap driver, truck driver, a lawyer and work at the assembly line at the same time. Thats why capcom made MH2g with a cat to help you out in the quest cuz playing alone is way too hard, i bet no one ever beat it while playing alone.....even the developer themselves, Therefore, i should be allow to review it and list my reasons.

  • red-orc

    Posted Jul 14, 2008 1:26 am PT

    Release day reviews exist cause most of the time reviewers get pre-release-versions. So the argument that you can't take those reviews serious, cause the reviewer didn't play through, is wrong. A game is not the movie kind of art, it's more like a meal- or - at most! - a painting-experience for the consumer. I don't remember one game that blew me away after ten hours of gameplay. A movie can build up, but games stay more or less the same quaility the whole way through.

  • pencilpusher69

    Posted Jul 13, 2008 11:35 pm PT

    "I don't tell readers when I don't finish a game," freelancer Rowe said. "I know it might sound shady, but I guarantee that it's standard practice. If every reviewer started listing play-times in reviews, readers would start flocking to whichever publication has the highest completion ratio, as opposed to the most worthwhile opinions."

    Why would somebody who puts in less time toward playing a game, think that their opinion is greater than that of those who've spent more time playing the same game?

    This is exactly why many like myself believe that Wii games score lower on this site. Remember your Excite Truck review??? I believe it was called a "bare bones demo", and you could TELL the reviewer hadn't unlocked jack, or ____. Said reviewer went on complaining about how LITTLE was in this game, and it was clear he hadn't played through ANY of it.

    Here's a neat concept: If game reviewers are too overwhelmed by games stacking up, give those projects to OTHER reviewers. Since each review is a seperate job, it wont cost one dime more.

    And then we can have THOROUGH reviews.

    This is part of the problem as to why the video game media are looked at as a joke. Can you imagine an incomplete book review? What about a critic who didn't feel like sitting through that whole 3 hour fantasy adventure, and so chose to review it based on the hour that he or she saw?

    Please, excuses are excuses, and this is mega-weak.

advertisement

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!