Missing part of a game, major mechanics, etc (IGN RE2 review related)

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

I just finished watching a youtube video on IGN's latest game review blunder. Apparently they only reviewed half the game. Haha, what a bunch of idiots (well, one reviewer and editor at least), I got to watch this... huh...new game 2 huh? New game with the other character just plays through the same scenario as before?...I...oh...

Well, only took me 20 years. Now, I think (I'm old, my memory of 20 years ago isn't great) I did actually play the B scenario purely because I read in a guide that you could get a different costume (IIRC), if you started a new game 2, shot the zombie of Brad Vickers from RE1 (IIRC) right at the start outside the police station. I had no idea there were 2 different scenarios for each character to play through accessed by starting new game2. Just thought Claire got 1, Leon got the other.

So I guess maybe the topic is something along the lines of: ever find out you were missing a major mechanic, part of a game etc an embarrassingly long time after you started playing it?

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

I check out IGN only for their news, announcements type of information.

Not for their Critique/Reviews on things.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Reviewer only plays through part of game to get review out quickly: "Wow, you're an idiot, you didn't play the whole thing."
Reviewer plays through entire game carefully for quality review: "Wow, you're an idiot, the game's been out for like forever."
Reviewer rushes through game to get comprehensive review quickly: "Wow, you're an idiot, there's so much you skipped."

There's no winning.

 

[Dalisclock]

Reviewer only plays through part of game to get review out quickly: "Wow, you're an idiot, you didn't play the whole thing."
Reviewer plays through entire game carefully for quality review: "Wow, you're an idiot, the game's been out for like forever."
Reviewer rushes through game to get comprehensive review quickly: "Wow, you're an idiot, there's so much you skipped."

There's no winning.

Not to the mention the ever present "You're playing the game wrong. Why don't you know how to play games?" Hell, I remember Yahtzee getting a bunch of this in the comments for his Smash Ultimate review, despite the fact Yahtzee made it really obvious he doesn't particularly like or care about the series or genre.

One of the problems of being a professional game reviewer. You have a limited time to play through games that are often crammed full of content(in case of Open World games), games/generes that you may or may enjoy and then get beaten up by readers because you're either "Shilling" if the score review is too positive or "Hating" if either negative or just not positive enough for the fans(I remember Jim Sterling getting screamed at by some Nintendo fans because he didn't think Zelda:BOTW was fucking perfect, even though he said a lot of good things about it and that he liked it).

I can also imagine that after a while the games all tend to feel the same anymore and it starts sucking the joy out of them. Hell, I'm getting Metal Gear V/Assassins Creed Origins flashbacks playing Horizon Zero Dawn because a lot of the mechanics feel so similar. That doesn't mean I dislike HZD(I very much like it but damn if it doesn't feel all weird).

No wonder Yathzee often sounds like he's fucking depressed or just not feeling the joy anymore.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Reviewer only plays through part of game to get review out quickly: "Wow, you're an idiot, you didn't play the whole thing."
Reviewer plays through entire game carefully for quality review: "Wow, you're an idiot, the game's been out for like forever."
Reviewer rushes through game to get comprehensive review quickly: "Wow, you're an idiot, there's so much you skipped."

There's no winning.

And there you've hit the proverbial nail on the head. Game reviews are pointless. The only people they serve are the investors who want to see metascores and profits.

Although there is legitimate complaints to be made if the reviewer docks the game points for factually wrong information. The IGN review of RE2 is a good example. It was knocked a few points because the reviewer didn't like that they cut the Clair redfield content. Which they didn't, he just missed it.

It'd be like you or I reviewing Starcrarft and docking it for not having a Zerg campaign.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Reviewer only plays through part of game to get review out quickly: "Wow, you're an idiot, you didn't play the whole thing."
Reviewer plays through entire game carefully for quality review: "Wow, you're an idiot, the game's been out for like forever."
Reviewer rushes through game to get comprehensive review quickly: "Wow, you're an idiot, there's so much you skipped."

There's no winning.

Yes and No.

Most of the things you said here? Spot on.

But then we have Reviews of people who don't get it. Like IGN's review of Alien Isolation [https://www.ign.com/videos/2014/10/03/alien-isolation-review] and God Hand [https://www.ign.com/articles/2006/10/10/god-hand-review?page=1]. Hell, God Hand's review basically shuttered Clover Studio. And the worst part? Almost universally, people who played the game disagree with the assessment.

Make no mistake, games today live or die on Day one sales and pre-orders. And reviews are a big, big part of that. If reviews or previews got it wrong, then games get left to the side. There is a vested interest on both the Consumer and the Publisher's side to get this info correct.

Lastly, this isn't just about Rushing through a review to get it done on time. He was factually wrong. We've all been to school, if we rushed through an essay to get it in on time and got a segment wrong, we'd receive a score on the information being incorrect. Who would come to our side and blame the teacher for the regimented schedule that 'forced us' to mistakenly give the wrong information... especially when everyone else got it correct?

Should he have his ability to write taken away? Hell no. Just like if you get one paper wrong, you shouldn't be flunked out of school solely on that paper. But if we can rightfully be put out by the restaurant who messed up our order, our cabbie for taking us to the wrong place because he was too busy listening to his music than listening to us, or or amazon sending us the wrong sized shirts, we can be put out about getting the wrong information.

Hell, we call each other out all the time on this very forum about wrong information we give in debates. Why should this review somehow be more sacrosanct?

 

[sXeth]

Reviewer only plays through part of game to get review out quickly: "Wow, you're an idiot, you didn't play the whole thing."
Reviewer plays through entire game carefully for quality review: "Wow, you're an idiot, the game's been out for like forever."
Reviewer rushes through game to get comprehensive review quickly: "Wow, you're an idiot, there's so much you skipped."

There's no winning.

Yes and No.

Most of the things you said here? Spot on.

But then we have Reviews of people who don't get it. Like IGN's review of Alien Isolation [https://www.ign.com/videos/2014/10/03/alien-isolation-review] and God Hand [https://www.ign.com/articles/2006/10/10/god-hand-review?page=1]. Hell, God Hand's review basically shuttered Clover Studio. And the worst part? Almost universally, people who played the game disagree with the assessment.

Make no mistake, games today live or die on Day one sales and pre-orders. And reviews are a big, big part of that. If reviews or previews got it wrong, then games get left to the side. There is a vested interest on both the Consumer and the Publisher's side to get this info correct.

Lastly, this isn't just about Rushing through a review to get it done on time. He was factually wrong. We've all been to school, if we rushed through an essay to get it in on time and got a segment wrong, we'd receive a score on the information being incorrect. Who would come to our side and blame the teacher for the regimented schedule that 'forced us' to mistakenly give the wrong information... especially when everyone else got it correct?

Should he have his ability to write taken away? Hell no. Just like if you get one paper wrong, you shouldn't be flunked out of school solely on that paper. But if we can rightfully be put out by the restaurant who messed up our order, our cabbie for taking us to the wrong place because he was too busy listening to his music than listening to us, or or amazon sending us the wrong sized shirts, we can be put out about getting the wrong information.

Hell, we call each other out all the time on this very forum about wrong information we give in debates. Why should this review somehow be more sacrosanct?

Also to the point, game reviewers are, at least on some level journalists. If there's some glaring problem or apparently missing content, they can query the developer/publisher about it. Almost universally if you write an article that's going to have some negative reflection on a person or entity, you're required to put out a request for comment (Even though "No comment" is largely the default answer for potential wrongdoings due to how evidence works) and to note that they declined comment in the article.

This in particular, given its not even a spoiler or anything, since RE2's not actually new. I can't imagine IGN couldn't have buzzed Capcom and been like "Hey guys, a bunch of the games missing, what gives" and avoided the whole mess.

 

[CaitSeith]

Almost universally if you write an article that's going to have some negative reflection on a person or entity, you're required to put out a request for comment

It's a GAME review, not a DEVELOPER review. Did your teacher request a comment before failing you in an exam? Mine didn't.

 

[CaitSeith]

Hell, we call each other out all the time on this very forum about wrong information we give in debates. Why should this review somehow be more sacrosanct?

Speaking of that:
https://youtu.be/2CenaMdSVRA?t=194

If the IGN reviewer never played the B scenario, why the hell is there footage and comments about it in the review!?

Spoiler: I'm calling the OP bullshit!

I'm calling the OP bullshit!

 

[CaitSeith]

Reviewer only plays through part of game to get review out quickly: "Wow, you're an idiot, you didn't play the whole thing."
Reviewer plays through entire game carefully for quality review: "Wow, you're an idiot, the game's been out for like forever."
Reviewer rushes through game to get comprehensive review quickly: "Wow, you're an idiot, there's so much you skipped."

There's no winning.

Pretty much this. The definition of good review seems to be "play it like I do":

- "Play it blind"
- "Play the original beforehand"
- "100% complete it"
- "Don't pay attention to that"
- "Just pay attention to the mechanics"
- "Make sure to get all the story"
- "Don't criticize the characters"
- "Notice how awful the characters are"

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Hell, we call each other out all the time on this very forum about wrong information we give in debates. Why should this review somehow be more sacrosanct?

Speaking of that:
https://youtu.be/2CenaMdSVRA?t=194

If the IGN reviewer never played the B scenario, why the hell is there footage and comments about it in the review!?

Spoiler: I'm calling the OP bullshit!

I'm calling the OP bullshit!

to be fair the review was updated and changed multiple times, with stuff removed and added to reflect there is a B story

 

[CaitSeith]

Hell, we call each other out all the time on this very forum about wrong information we give in debates. Why should this review somehow be more sacrosanct?

Speaking of that:
https://youtu.be/2CenaMdSVRA?t=194

If the IGN reviewer never played the B scenario, why the hell is there footage and comments about it in the review!?

Spoiler: I'm calling the OP bullshit!

I'm calling the OP bullshit!

to be fair the review was updated and changed multiple times, with stuff removed and added to reflect there is a B story

I stand corrected.

 

[Something Amyss]

Reviewer only plays through part of game to get review out quickly: "Wow, you're an idiot, you didn't play the whole thing."
Reviewer plays through entire game carefully for quality review: "Wow, you're an idiot, the game's been out for like forever."
Reviewer rushes through game to get comprehensive review quickly: "Wow, you're an idiot, there's so much you skipped."

There's no winning.

Not to the mention the ever present "You're playing the game wrong. Why don't you know how to play games?" Hell, I remember Yahtzee getting a bunch of this in the comments for his Smash Ultimate review, despite the fact Yahtzee made it really obvious he doesn't particularly like or care about the series or genre.

I've always found this particularly weird with Yahtzee. I don't know most reviewers' preferences, but Yahtzee wears them on his sleeve. "WHY DON'T YOU REVIEW THIS FRANCHISE?" "I'm not a fan of it." "WELL REVIEW IT ANY"WAY!" "I didn't like it. "THEN WHY DID YOU REVIEW IT/YOU'RE PLAYING IT WRONG!"

As a general rule, I don't watch ZP for Yahtzee's loving praise of various video games anyway. I sort of wonder if people just haven't cottoned to the formula, or think that this game is such a masterpiece Yahtzee will suddenly do a 180.

In general, there is no winning with reviews, period. The biggest example isn't even necessarily the amount of the game you play, because if you play ten minutes and give it the score people want, you are fair and objective. But woe be to the reviewer who gives a game even a fraction of a point too high (paid by the publisher, those shills!) or too low (trying to kill the game's Metacritic score/hating on it for clicks, those frauds!). For pretty much any reason. Ever.

Again, I've never got this mentality. I use game scores as a very rough thumbnail to get an idea, same with aggregate scores. Oh hey, a bunch of reviewers liked/.hated this, let's finid out why.

Hell, God Hand's review basically shuttered Clover Studio. And the worst part? Almost universally, people who played the game disagree with the assessment.

And roughly 100% of Jim Jones' followers disagreed with the standard thinking.

There's an almost tauological self-selection in both cases. Fan reactions tend to not only be extreme, but tend to be...well, I hate to repet myself, but self-selecting. Looking t user reviews, they are mostly positively, but looking ast what's actually said, it's clear a significant chunk of the people speaking are only motivated to speak because of the IGN review. This is basically the opposite of a review bomb, and I wouldn't be surprised if I could find that some people had organised efforts to do so.

I wonder what the ratios wold look like without all the people who used their positive reviews to editorialise on how IGN suxorz. I wonder, but not enough to actually aggregate them. Pages of reviews with "IGN" in the text tell me that you might as well be saying "deep state."

What was the name of that game for XBLA (and maybe PSN) that was so bad the developers finally "fixed" it by essentially replacing it with a different, larger game? Hydrosomething? The defense for that game, that even the devs had to concede wasn't goods still had its diehards. I'm not sure if Metacritic was around at the time, but if it was, I'm sure here would be a ton of user reviews screaming about how people don't get it the game is the best 10/10.

Why should this review somehow be more sacrosanct?

Christ, if someone was being hounded on literally every point they make, whether good or bad, whether valid or not, you'd have the moral fortitude to point out they can't win. I've done it with people I don't even like, and it's got me in trouble before.

[/spoiler]

to be fair the review was updated and changed multiple times, with stuff removed and added to reflect there is a B story[/quote]

And this is becoming a lot more common over time.

It's not inherrently a bad thing, but it is important for people to keep in mind when judging the review they see versus the ones people are reacting to.

Even if, as already mentioned, reactions tend to be kind of extreme.

 

[sXeth]

Almost universally if you write an article that's going to have some negative reflection on a person or entity, you're required to put out a request for comment

It's a GAME review, not a DEVELOPER review. Did your teacher request a comment before failing you in an exam? Mine didn't.

I'd imagine a query would come up if you handed a 10 page exam back with only 5 pages. Or gave your literature professor a thesis on quantum entanglement. You might not escape some demerits (particularly in the second case if the confusion allowed you extra time to complete your assignment), but you might if the teacher missed half the exam because they forgot they printed it double-sided so its 100% their issue.

Not every little detail merits the questioning. But if one half or one third of the game is just inexplicably missing, the reviewer should probably be verifying they didn't get an alpha build or something. They could even inquire with their peers discreetly if they didn't want to presumably allow Capcom to influence the review or do some sort of cover up.

As liability goes, while there's a lot of groundwork to lay out any kind of case since they'd have to establish the value of an IGN review. Capcom could in theory present a suit against IGN for damaging sales by publishing provably false information. There are lots of ways to write in qualifications that a review is your own opinion or experience on something. But the existence or non-existence of specific content is a pretty objective one that that doesn't work with. I didn't read the original, and its been edited, but I'm assuming they specifically said that Scenario B didn't exist, and not something like "playthrough was unexpected short, and it seems like Capcom may trimmed parts of the story".

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Hell, we call each other out all the time on this very forum about wrong information we give in debates. Why should this review somehow be more sacrosanct?

Speaking of that:
https://youtu.be/2CenaMdSVRA?t=194

If the IGN reviewer never played the B scenario, why the hell is there footage and comments about it in the review!?

Spoiler: I'm calling the OP bullshit!

I'm calling the OP bullshit!

to be fair the review was updated and changed multiple times, with stuff removed and added to reflect there is a B story

I stand corrected.

Yeah you're right that right now the review is fairly balanced and fair. But the initial one, the one people got upset about, was harsher. The author said he was looking forward to playing as Claire and seeing her side of things, but instead of selecting Story B, he selected New Game and picked Claire as his character. And all that does is let you play the other person's story as that character. So he just replayed the Leon story as Claire and critiqued the game for wasting the potential of not having two different stories.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I went through the first Kingdom Hearts without knowing you could swap out party members or summon support characters.
I also went through all of Kingdom Hearts 2 without knowing about... not even sure what they're called bu there're different costumes for you to level up, right? Andyou're supposed to gind through the whole game to unlock their full potential. Again, no idea until the final stage.

 

[Dalisclock]

Reviewer only plays through part of game to get review out quickly: "Wow, you're an idiot, you didn't play the whole thing."
Reviewer plays through entire game carefully for quality review: "Wow, you're an idiot, the game's been out for like forever."
Reviewer rushes through game to get comprehensive review quickly: "Wow, you're an idiot, there's so much you skipped."

There's no winning.

Not to the mention the ever present "You're playing the game wrong. Why don't you know how to play games?" Hell, I remember Yahtzee getting a bunch of this in the comments for his Smash Ultimate review, despite the fact Yahtzee made it really obvious he doesn't particularly like or care about the series or genre.

I've always found this particularly weird with Yahtzee. I don't know most reviewers' preferences, but Yahtzee wears them on his sleeve. "WHY DON'T YOU REVIEW THIS FRANCHISE?" "I'm not a fan of it." "WELL REVIEW IT ANY"WAY!" "I didn't like it. "THEN WHY DID YOU REVIEW IT/YOU'RE PLAYING IT WRONG!"

As a general rule, I don't watch ZP for Yahtzee's loving praise of various video games anyway. I sort of wonder if people just haven't cottoned to the formula, or think that this game is such a masterpiece Yahtzee will suddenly do a 180.

In general, there is no winning with reviews, period. The biggest example isn't even necessarily the amount of the game you play, because if you play ten minutes and give it the score people want, you are fair and objective. But woe be to the reviewer who gives a game even a fraction of a point too high (paid by the publisher, those shills!) or too low (trying to kill the game's Metacritic score/hating on it for clicks, those frauds!). For pretty much any reason. Ever.

Again, I've never got this mentality. I use game scores as a very rough thumbnail to get an idea, same with aggregate scores. Oh hey, a bunch of reviewers liked/.hated this, let's finid out why.

I suspect there's this whole "Challenge" aspect of it, the idea that someone says they don't like something(for whatever reason) and "I'm gonna be the guy who convinces him otherwise". I'm sure there's also some people who genuinely cannot understand the concept that someone might not like the same things they like and anyone who claims otherwise is just in denial. I'm sure there's a better term for it, but it feels like some people want to be missionaries and win converts for....whatever it is.

And there was that time Yathzee reviewed COD:Modern Warfare and liked it, citing people had been crying in the comments for him to try it out, so that might lead people to believe he can be convinced any game is amazing if he's poked enough. Because Yahtzee liking the same game you like validates your existence or something.

A review score feels almost meaningless when someone can dump on something for the entire review and still give it an 8/10. Much better are the ones that give a summary of the end of highs and lows, but there's no substitution for at least scanning an review.

Anyhow, in respect to the original query, I went through all of MGS and half of MGS2 without realizing you could chokehold people from behind. I found this out at the one point in MGS2 where you need to use a mook to open a door by pushing his face into a scanner, but he had to be conscious, so you couldn't just knock him out and push his face into the scanner(and believe me, I wasted 30 minutes trying). Then I checked the manual and realized the chokehold was a thing.

I'd just been punching and kicking my way through the game when I had play unarmed at that point(and used the tranq gun all the time in 2). Part of the consequence of coming off the first 2 Metal Gear games straight into MGS, because there's no choke holds in the first 2 either. I admit, I didn't look at the manual either because I've long since fallen out of practice with that(most games just teach you as you go nowadays, and Metal Gear still holds your hand a lot) and I skipped the VR missions for both games.

 

[Something Amyss]

I suspect there's this whole "Challenge" aspect of it, the idea that someone says they don't like something(for whatever reason) and "I'm gonna be the guy who convinces him otherwise". I'm sure there's also some people who genuinely cannot understand the concept that someone might not like the same things they like and anyone who claims otherwise is just in denial. I'm sure there's a better term for it, but it feels like some people want to be missionaries and win converts for....whatever it is.

And there was that time Yathzee reviewed COD:Modern Warfare and liked it, citing people had been crying in the comments for him to try it out, so that might lead people to believe he can be convinced any game is amazing if he's poked enough. Because Yahtzee liking the same game you like validates your existence or something.

A review score feels almost meaningless when someone can dump on something for the entire review and still give it an 8/10. Much better are the ones that give a summary of the end of highs and lows, but there's no substitution for at least scanning an review.

A lot of people seem to seek validation from weird sources, but also seem to think their content is bulletproof. I'm amazed at the number of people who love CinemaSins until they pick on a movie they like. Granted, I'd rather have Yahztee because there's some criticism buried in his cynicism and snark, but the comments sections here never blew up like a CinemaSins thread about how Oh my God I can't believe a channel designed to pettily nitpick movies could find petty nitpicks in Back to the future!

...meanwhile, I'm more prone to skip the reviews for games I'm, not interested in. I make special exceptions for things like Smash Bros, because I know there'll be an incoming train wreck, or if a game or if I expect the commentary will be any good, but I tend to get the most fun out of the videos that pick on franchises I play or at least am familiar with. I might just be weird that way, though.

Especially looking through the comments of SSBU just now. Pretty much what I expected.

Anyhow, in respect to the original query

I'm still wracking my brains for an example, but nothing comes to mind. I'm sure at some point I've done something like this, because it's such a "me" thing to do.

 

[CaitSeith]

OT: Final Fantasy VIII

You absorb the magic from enemies and link spells to your stats for a boost. Fine. But I missed the part where the more quantity of the same spell you have, the higher the stat boost. I ended up underpowered without knowing why as a result and rage-quit at midgame.

Dark Souls

I missed the stairs to Undead Burg, and tried the graveyard instead. Several hours later I realized it wasn't the right path. Also I missed the whole cursed mechanics in my first playthrough because I never got cursed (unknowingly, I had a pretty decent curse resistance when exploring the sewers).

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Assuming the game wasn't public release but rather a review copy of a hot new game, are people legitimately expecting editors to play through every game their reviewers look at before validatig an article?

I'd say the fault lies squarely at the reviewer's feet. Though that beig said even that is questionable. Jim Sterling's latest video about the clusterfuck of KH's multitude of story branches and its sheer esoterica. I also don't expect a reviewer to feel bad if they complain about a Kingdom Hearts gamee narrative and someone pretends why something is important because some weird fucking niche title you can't easily get or play through in enough time to understand.