Poll: Can a review be valid if the reviewer did not finish the game in question?

[Lord Doomhammer]

Just like the poll asks.

Now since yahtzee is such a celebrity here, I feel the need to call him out on this. After yet another review where he openly admits to not having finished the game in question, I for one think he's becoming more and more full of shit. Don't get me wrong, I don't sympathize with the games over the reviewer and I definitely am not going to go blow a bunch of money on some game I don't care about to prove him wrong. But should people in such a position be obligated to at the very least finish the game before calling it one of Satan's balls.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Are we assuming time constraints and a paid job? Or just plain user reviews?

If the former, there's certainly excuse for not finishing a game. If the latter, one shouldn't bother reviewing, except maybe to say "I hated this so much I couldn't finish."

 

[darth.pixie]

Considering I don't watch Yahtzee, I have no idea what game it was and what he's been saying.

But in general, it's possible to not finish the game and argue that it was too bad for it. Granted, it's not the best way and seems a bit unprofessional but that's that.

 

[Who Dares Wins]

What if he's reviewing a MMO.

OT: Also most reviewers actually DO finish games, but you can't call Yahtzee a classic reviewer. People watch his reviews for lulz and not actual game reviews. (at least I hope so) Also I'm pretty sure that it would be at least fair for a reviewer to actually finish a game because not all content can be experienced and judged properly. (Exception: Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing)

 

[Necator15]

Not really. Bear in mind that Yahtzee is a critic, not a reviewer, there is a slight distinction there. Most of his complaints usually center around the gameplay, which you can gather from even just a few minutes of playing the game, and if the game isn't interesting enough to hold his or someone else's attention for the duration, then that speaks volumes about the game.

With actual reviewers it gets a little more difficult to say. On the one hand they should be pointing out the problems with the game, and on the other they should be praising it for what it does well. In the latter instance finishing the game can only be beneficial as the experience as a whole is more important on the positive sides than the negative. If that makes any sense.

 

[adrian_exec]

Of course a review is valid if the reviewer(critic) hasn't finished the game, you don't have to play the whole game in order to form an opinion about it.

It's like trying your grandma's apple pie for the first time and you have to eat the whole damn pie in order for you to decide if it's good or not.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Not really. Bear in mind that Yahtzee is a critic, not a reviewer, there is a slight distinction there. Most of his complaints usually center around the gameplay, which you can gather from even just a few minutes of playing the game, and if the game isn't interesting enough to hold his or someone else's attention for the duration, then that speaks volumes about the game.

With actual reviewers it gets a little more difficult to say. On the one hand they should be pointing out the problems with the game, and on the other they should be praising it for what it does well. In the latter instance finishing the game can only be beneficial as the experience as a whole is more important on the positive sides than the negative. If that makes any sense.

Pretty much this. Yahtzee isn't a reviewer, but a critic.

Also, I would say 'No'. You actually have to go through the game to get a good 'feel' for it. (I've seen people write off Dead Space 2 after chapter 6...there are 15 chapters. At least get to the incredibly frustrating Chapter 14-15 become complaining!)

 

[WelshDanny]

I review games on a freelance basis around my full-time job.I admit there have been a number of times where I haven't managed to finish the game due to the time contraint of having to do it around a full time 9-6 job.

However, I do try and play as much as possible with the intention of finishing the game to get as much information as I possibly can.

It was easier when I was unemployed, but unfortunately, I don't get paid for it.

As for people who work as full-time game journalists, what I'm led to believe is that it's not all sitting around playing games for them either. It's going to be pretty damn hard to review a 50 hour RPG around the rest of a job isn't it?

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

I say that if the game is incredibly long, like any FF game, or some kind of MMO, then it's reasonable to not "finish" the game before critiquing it. However, some random FPS should probably be finished, since it likely has only about 20 hours of gameplay at maximum.

 

[mjc0961]

If they admit that they didn't finish and explain why, sure. The opinions of someone who couldn't finish a game can always be helpful in deciding to make a purchase, as you can see what drove them to not bother playing it. Was it just really really bad? Was it fun but with so many bugs that it made it too big a chore to fight with the bugs and the crashes to bother finishing? And so on. But of course, you keep in mind that maybe they were one hour away from having the game turn into something awesome, and you go read other reviews too.

In fact, if you're ever only reading one review before making a decision, you're doing it wrong. You should be trying to read lots of reviews and get lots of different opinions to better determine if it's something you'd enjoy. Reading just one review is foolish, regardless of if its author finished the game or not.

 

[2xDouble]

Yes. Partly because the ending/endgame cannot, by itself, redeem an entire game's poor mechanics, shoddy workmanship (bad voice acting, buggy gameplay, etc.), and so on. Yahtzee himself [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1569-Final-Fantasy-XIII] has debunked the "but it gets better later" argument. If it takes too long or is too bad leading up to the good parts, it doesn't really matter how good the good parts are. Admittedly he did use that same excuse in another review (I can't remember which one), but he qualified it well.


Extra Credits [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2738-Playing-Like-a-Designer-Part-2] has some insights into this topic as well.

 

[StriderShinryu]

While games should and do often progress during gameplay, you should never have to wait for a game to get good at some nebulous point later on. Reviewers should certainly take their time with a title to ensure they are giving their readers/viewers a feel for the full experience, but I can't recall ever playing any game that I thought was garbage up to the last stage or up to the ending and then suddenly changing my mind about it. Even if it did happen, I can't see that ever actually making me change my overall opinion of the title.

 

[Jim Grim]

So long as they see everything the game has to offer, then I see no problem with not finishing it.

 

[sheah1]

If a game is not entertaining enough or doesn't provide enough incentive to finish the game (through terrible story, ridiculous difficulty curve, repetition, etc.) then it's perfectly reasonable to call that a bad game. Part of a game's job is to make you want to play the game, if it can't do that then it's not doing its job as a game and is a bad game. Like, say, Final Fantasy XIII (sorry, had to be done).

 

[SammiYin]

You have to read reviews as if you are the reviewer [In my opinion anyway], therefore if a game wasn't interesting or good enough to hold their attention for long, then you should be wary of this also.
Another thing,most gameplay elements [which should and always must be the most important part of a game...otherwise you're watching a film] should be present from the start, if not then until at least halfway through, so if a reviewer doesn't do it all then all you're really missing out on plot, which can be found elsewhere. So yea in my opinion it's valid [as far as validity goes concerning the subjective views of another person].

 

[nipsen]

..if you explain exactly what you are reviewing, I don't see the problem. I mean, most popular review-sites just neglect to mention that their reviewer perhaps never really tried to get to the bottom of the game's mechanics. Or if the branching they talk about comes from a PR blurb rather than actual experience. In the same way, very often details that do save the game-flow from being stale and uninteresting aren't mentioned at all, and could as far as the score and the review is concerned never have existed.

In any case, the entire reviewer/critic angle - if you call it a subjective review, ZP often ends up explaining one perspective very thoroughly. So that even if you disagree, you can see where the opinion comes from. As well as what is simply ignored or roughed over completely. And, can you really ask for anything else from a critic?

 

[pulse2]

Just like the poll asks.

Now since yahtzee is such a celebrity here, I feel the need to call him out on this. After yet another review where he openly admits to not having finished the game in question, I for one think he's becoming more and more full of shit. Don't get me wrong, I don't sympathize with the games over the reviewer and I definitely am not going to go blow a bunch of money on some game I don't care about to prove him wrong. But should people in such a position be obligated to at the very least finish the game before calling it one of Satan's balls.

The question I have for this is, would you have to eat an entire meal to know it isn't for you, or watch the entirety of a boring movie for you to say it was good or bad or stop halfway into a boring book and realise you have complete it before you can sum up a good critisism?

I think that all depends on what exactly the thing in question consists of, you don't have to complete a game entirely to know if you love it or hate it, yeah, it might pick up at the end, but whats the point playing if you've gotten through 50% of it and its been boring so far, does the end really justify the tedious experience playing through it to get there?

Take Lair in its original form for example, would you need to play to the end to realise the controls sucked? Or play all 100% of the missions to realise its repetitive? Or See all of the levels to realise the graphics weren't particularly outstanding?

I agree that in some cases one would have to wait until the end to sum up a decent review especially where in certain cases things are unlocked that make the game go from bad to awesome, but unless that's the case (which isn't for most bad games) you shouldn't need to play, eat, watch, read, try something to know you don't like it.

Saying that, Yahtzee picks on things that everyone will notice so that his reviews don't always sound like a personal vendetta and the odd things he in particular didn't like, simply because for everyone one of us that likes something, there is someone who hates it, after all, he IS supposed to be a negative critic, he can't go praising things otherwise he'd be boring. But he does know when and where to praise a game.

Another question for you, even if you do get through 100% of it, do you feel you have the right to review or critisize something that someone else may love?

 

[Tipsythegza]

Its just another persons opinion, if they don't like the game half way in thats on them. Take reviews (opinions) with a grain of salt.

 

[Inconnu24]

I voted 'girl scout cookies!' because I'm sick of people getting all bent out of shape over shit Yahtzee says.