Reviewers Should Finish Games, Says Zampella

[Logan Westbrook]

Reviewers Should Finish Games, Says Zampella

Respawn co-founder and former Infinity Ward boss Vince Zampella says that there's nothing more frustrating than reviewers not completing games before they write about them.

Have you ever read a review, and got the sense that the reviewer maybe hadn't played it all the way through? Vince Zampella has, and says that as a game maker, there's not a lot that's more annoying than a review based on only a partial experience with a game.

Speaking on a panel at QuakeCon in Dallas, Zampella said that he had read reviews that contained things that were untrue, or spoke about features that didn't exist, which he said made it obvious that the reviewer in question hadn't finished the game. He added that aside from being frustrating, it was unfair to the games.

Also on the panel was Bethesda's Todd Howard, who agreed with Zampella and said that developers needed honest and complete feedback in order to make better games. "If [reviewers are] going to give you criticism and they've obviously played the game and thought about it, which we all get, it's actually helpful."

While few would argue that reviews should be as fair as possible, insisting that reviewers must complete a game to be able to make a fair assessment is overly simplistic. It is perhaps more useful to say that a reviewer should "fully investigate" a game, something that isn't necessarily tied in with seeing the credits roll.

Source: Eurogamer [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-08-13-zampella-reviewers-should-finish-games]


Permalink

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Yeah....so how DO you finish an MMO...or TF2...or The Path

Even a linear structure like Fallout 3, how long would that take? Yahtzee would be down to one game every two months.

 

[Weaver]

I agree with them, if you're going to review a game you should have finished it.

 

[Durxom]

Ya, I personally agree. I usually wait till I finish a game or know it in and out enough before I ever review it on here.

You can really tell when someone hasn't played the whole thing and makes up false statements like the tutorial being 10 hours long *cough*Yahtzee*cough* ...

 

[fulano]

But what about a game as long as Fallout 3 or Oblivion...and it sucks? It's kinda nasty to say that a reviewer should have to stand the assault of that game for, say, 15 hours on end. That's mental. And besides, there are not enough game reviewers around so that every game could have a reviewer attached.

Dumb game revieweing should be out, but this...well...

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yeah....so how DO you finish an MMO...or TF2...or The Path

Even a linear structure like Fallout 3, how long would that take? Yahtzee would be down to one game every two months.

Exactamundo.

I remember there being an article here somewhere in an Escapist weekly issue a long time ago about how reviewers really can't afford the time to finish an entire game most of the time, because they have to have a ready review maybe 1 or 2 days after having gotten hold of a copy, and often developers supply them with cheat codes so they can get through games faster, and how they are constantly under stress because if they only write reviews for one magazine at the time, they wouldn't make enough money.

 

[Space Spoons]

I completely agree. If a movie critic put out a review that said, "'Dinner for Schmucks' was the worst movie this year. I only saw the first ten minutes, but I could tell.", they'd never be taken seriously in their industry again. Why should game reviewers be any different?

 

[NeutralDrow]

As a some-time reviewer myself, I agree. I'll either wind up satisfying myself immensely, or taking a bullet for whoever reads my review.

Granted, I'm not on a time schedule, which is where critics like Yahtzee stand. Might be a bit much to ask in that case (though I got the impression that some of his Extra Punctuation stuff comes after he more fully experiences certain games).

 

[Simalacrum]

While few would argue that reviews should be as fair as possible, insisting that reviewers must complete a game to be able to make a fair assessment is overly simplistic. It is perhaps more useful to say that a reviewer should "fully investigate" a game, something that isn't necessarily tied in with seeing the credits roll.

Now... this sounds like an... excuse... almost like a desperate reasoning for someone's own failing... have The Escapist finished the games before they reviewed them?? HMMMMMM???

I kid I kid XD

OT: I think that reviewer's should finish the games, but not in the sense of "get every achievement and trophy on all platforms" sort of finish... I think the reviewer, at least, has the obligation to get through the story, try (at least partly) all the other aspects (side-missions, some achievements, etc), basically any aspect that your average gamer might have a go at before moving onto the next game.

 

[jelock]

Yeah....so how DO you finish an MMO...or TF2...or The Path

Even a linear structure like Fallout 3, how long would that take? Yahtzee would be down to one game every two months.

Exactamundo.

I remember there being an article here somewhere in an Escapist weekly issue a long time ago about how reviewers really can't afford the time to finish an entire game most of the time, because they have to have a ready review maybe 1 or 2 days after having gotten hold of a copy, and often developers supply them with cheat codes so they can get through games faster, and how they are constantly under stress because if they only write reviews for one magazine at the time, they wouldn't make enough money.

This one here http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_243/7235-Cheating-the-System

 

[Gasaraki]

I completely agree. If a movie critic put out a review that said, "'Dinner for Schmucks' was the worst movie this year. I only saw the first ten minutes, but I could tell.", they'd never be taken seriously in their industry again. Why should game reviewers be any different?

Because games tend to be much longer than movies. The fact of the matter is that they just don't have the time sometimes, take Yahtzee for example: playing an entire game a week doesn't sound too bad until you factor in the fact that he has to write a script and make a video too, not to mention that there are probably other games that he wants to play too.

 

[Dfskelleton]

If a reviewer HAS to review a game (Yahtzee) and they haven't finished it because it's too long or too boring, fine. They still have to make the review, and then idiot fanboys insult the reviewer constantly thinking their oppinion matters. If I HAD to write a review on a game I hated so much that I didn't finish it, it would piss me off if morons constantly insulted my mother's sexual dcency in the name of a game I hate. It's my oppinion of the first bit I played, and it sucked.
Ya know what I'm sayin?
(Alternatively, Ya don't know what I'm sayin?)

 

[Banana Phone Man]

Sure in shot straight forward games that take a few hours to do, yes, reviewers should play the whole game. But what about the games that are all about exploring open worlds, multiple choices etc etc that would take days, possibly weeks, to do everything that can be done. There would be no way for a reviewer that has a strict time limit to do everything in a game.

 

[Shackels]

If a game isn't good enough to keep them entertained, it's probably not worth their time. games are made to amuse, after all.

 

[ioxles]

Does this really need to be said yet again?

Of course game reviewers don't have enough time to play through every game they have to review, what we get is mostly an impression of the game with the gaps filled in by technical views and the obligiatory 7-9 judgement at the end.

The business of reviews. That simple. Get them out as quick as the game is released and if your publisher/website has some vested interest forget about realistic scoring altogether.

The best reviewers will give a personal account of what they played and interest/put you off with that whilst keeping within the obligatory guidelines of scoring etc. But to expect every reviewer to complete every game is just insanity, It's a job. Get the job done. Show your love for games.

 

[dagens24]

I agree/disagree. I think that it's fine to write a review on a game even if we haven't finished it but I think you should make that fact clear from the get go. I have yet to play (and probably will never play) FF13 because it sounds to me as though it takes a solid 20 hours to get good. I think games should be good from the get go (not having to invest a ridiculous amount of time to get to the good part), but the fact is that apparently it DOES get better. The vast majority of reviews claim that it really picks up 20 hours in so in this sense, yes, the reviewer should finish the game to give it a final rating. But if he didn't finish it then at least let the reader know just in case it does get better.

 

[Fearzone]

In Vince Zampella's utopian society, probably the only games that would be reviewed at all are those that take less than 20 hours to play, and the only ones that would get a lot of reviews are those that take less than 10.

Hey... wait...

 

[tlozoot]

Spending 10 hours with a game is probably enough to get a good feel of everything it has to offer. Good games shouldn't be springing massively game-changing things on you after then anyway.

On the flip side, how slow you take a game can affect how much fun you have with it. I ripped through Oblivions missions and factions and had a meh time. I played it again a year later, taking my time, exploring and going at my own pace and had a blast - I think that's how the game should be played, and how it should be reflected in review scores.

 

[ItsAPaul]

Ironic considering you can't complete Modern Warfare 2. Well, the majority of people who care if they can beat other people in a video game can't anyway.