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

[Arawn.Chernobog]

Yes, considering that in about 99% of games the core mechanics and their nuances are displayed in the first 1-2 hours of play, leaving the rest of the game to simply be an exploration of the remaining plot or a way of polishing the already presented mechanics.

In fact, I'd consider a game demanding you to play several double-digit hours worth of game-play in order to get the core mechanics and features of the game down... as a really bad feature.

 

[Olrod]

If you don't like a game in the first few hours of playing, it's not going to suddenly become good just because you've played it to completion.

 

[SyphonX]

If I had to complete every game I've ever played, in order to form an opinion on it... well, I wouldn't be on this site, and I sure as hell wouldn't be playing games anymore. I'd work a coal mine in China before I'm forced to sit and play some of the crap that gets thrown on the shelves.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

I'd say so. One of the main things a game should do is engage the player (through storyline, gameplay, atmosphere etc) to, well, play it. A game that fails to do that has some fundamental issues; issues which consumers should be made aware of.

 

[Spookimitsu]

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.

I say no. If your introduction to the game is shite, and the first chapter is shite, and the first boss is unimpressive, and it's not motivating you to the second chapter, yet you play it anyways, and it's complete garbage, while play through 8 more chapters just to get a fancier, shittier sword?

No, call the game out for what it is and move on. If a game doesn't really get good until later in the game, then its not really that good of a game. Even action Rpgs which require the player to progress a character through the game by accumulating skills and equipables can even be good at the very beginning, when none of these are present. A good game is still good without endgame gear, without mounts, without the best weapon with acog sights, without expanded bags of holding.It should be a wanted experience from "Press Start"

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Full of shit? The guy is a comedian, not a reviewer.

That said, most games don't change dramatically in gameplay toward the end. The climatic finish is usually just one giant fight useing everything you've learned througout the game. The majority of the game is done in the second act, if that act is not fun, then the ending can't save it.

 

[Del-Toro]

They're not even really reviews. The consumer advice facade is a thin one at best (I don't even use his reviews to guage games, they're largely on games I've never played and never will anyway). As someone else already said, they're criticisms. Besides, if you did that shit for a living, and was on a deadline based schedule, like Yahtzee is, while trying to balance other responsibilities (like that bar he occasionally mentions) you wouldn't finish every single game either. Plus some of them just aren't worth finishing, if you can get a clear idea of what needs to be said about it in an hour or two, and you don't have much more than that, then go with it.

 

[Lesd3vil]

He's reviewing the game, not the story. I'd say that you can get a good idea of the mechanics, the graphic style, and all the other important stuff within half an hour of pressing start (assuming it's not an MGS-style cutscene-athon). Sure, you might miss the end of the story if you don't finish it, or some kind of awesome set-piece, but no set-piece could be awesome enough to repudiate the fact that the rest of the game sucks hairy donkey testes, and in most cases every game has the same bleeding story anyway...

 

[IvoryTowerGamer]

Journalistic integrity, for one. See how much credibility a movie critic who walks out of movie has, none. There are reviewers who take their job seriously, like Micah C. Reviewers are not given multiple projects at a time. So I don't see your point. I'm sure an editor loves hearing that a reviewer dropped a game to play something cooler.

Funny that you bring up movie reviewers. I don't know of a famous movie critic that hasn't admitted to walking out on a movie at one time or another.

As far as integrity goes, again, I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove if they decide to keep playing for another 10 grueling hours as opposed to moving on to their next review. So long as they are forthright about not finishing the game I think they they can still retain their integrity as an honest reviewer.

 

[Lord Doomhammer]

Let me start by saying that I'm really impressed with the level of intelligent discussion going on in this thread. I'm amazed also that people are still interested in this topic enough to get me some fancy new badges so thanks for that.

Ok, that said I feel compelled to clarify a bit on my position for starting this thread. Seeing someone try to convince everyone who watches a video that a game is 'fucking fucking fucking fucking crap crap crap crap' and that 'you should never never never never play this game!' and then openly admit that he refused to give the game enough of a chance to see if there are even redeeming factors later on.

I'm reminded for some reason of a friend of mine from my early days in college who dismissed Half Life 2 because he could not get past the hunter chopper. I'm not gonna say any game from the past couple years are as good as HL2 but the principle is the same.

Nextly, I don't buy this "oh wo is me, I cannot possibly be compelled to finish this monolithic epic of a game in a mere week" You have a 10 to 40 hour story to get through and then a write up to do. I've worked on a production pipeline and I understand that time is a very finite resource, but there are 168 hours in a week, so I think a brother could find the time if only by putting off the nightly jerk off. This is not just a matter of like or dislike, this is a matter of journalistic integrity, Roger and Ebert doesn't get up half way through twilight just because it sucks.

Let me just wrap up my thoughts and be done with this before I get banned or something. And yea, maybe yahtzee is a bad example, but for all the clout and pomp of his claims the idea that someone in his position would be allowed to get away with dismissing a game after 3 hours of play seems juvenile and completely unprofessional.

 

[tharglet]

I think yes - if there's a reason for stopping playing the game. As long as the reviewer states what they have/haven't done, and the reasons for not doing the stuff they did, it's still useful.
If they gave up on a game a few hours in because it was soo dull, I'd know it wasn't a game for me - for the reason even if the game was "best game evverrr" after a certain point, it still won't redeem it.

The film Paranormal activity was like this for me - the bad start won't redeem the film for the end bit. If the film was cut in half, I'd find it a better watch.

 

[IvoryTowerGamer]

Ok, that said I feel compelled to clarify a bit on my position for starting this thread. Seeing someone try to convince everyone who watches a video that a game is 'fucking fucking fucking fucking crap crap crap crap' and that 'you should never never never never play this game!' and then openly admit that he refused to give the game enough of a chance to see if there are even redeeming factors later on.

But even if there are redeeming factors later on do you think it would change the review? I guess that's why I don't see the point in continuing to play.

I'm reminded for some reason of a friend of mine from my early days in college who dismissed Half Life 2 because he could not get past the hunter chopper. I'm not gonna say any game from the past couple years are as good as HL2 but the principle is the same.

If he didn't like the game up until that point I think he was justified. If I remember correctly that fight was 2-3 hours into the game.

This is not just a matter of like or dislike, this is a matter of journalistic integrity, Roger and Ebert doesn't get up half way through twilight just because it sucks.

Let me just wrap up my thoughts and be done with this before I get banned or something. And yea, maybe yahtzee is a bad example, but for all the clout and pomp of his claims the idea that someone in his position would be allowed to get away with dismissing a game after 3 hours of play seems juvenile and completely unprofessional.

Actually Roger Ebert has walked out on movies before, and they are even a lot shorter than video games.

Again, I don't see how this says anything about his journalistic integrity. He played the game until he knew it was bad beyond redemption, and he played for longer than I'd bet your average player would. Even if the game did get better, what would that change? Would any of his viewers want to waste 3+ hours of their life just to get to the good part? Why would they want to do that when they could just play a game that's fun from the start?

 

[jpoon]

Absolutely, I can tell pretty damn fast if a game is total shit or not, I don't need to beat a game to know this.

 

[Continuity]

I think generally a person ought to aim to finish a game before reviewing it, after all their opinion might well change after having played it all the way though.

So long as the reviewer states that they didn't finish the game and gives a reason then I don't have any problem with them giving the game a review... however of course the person reading the review should always take these sorts of reviews with a pinch of salt.

Absolutely, I can tell pretty damn fast if a game is total shit or not, I don't need to beat a game to know this.

Sometimes games take "getting into" though, it could be that you're dismissing games that if you gave them a proper chance you would actually turn out liking.

 

[Nemu]

Yes.

If the game is crap, then it's crap. I can invest 20 hours into one and deduce that it's a terrible game without needing to finish it. I suppose the reader just needs to decide whether or not s/he finds that reviewer's body of work to be unbiased and honest. If it is, then a random game not being finished isn't catastrophic to a review.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Journalistic integrity, for one. See how much credibility a movie critic who walks out of movie has, none. There are reviewers who take their job seriously, like Micah C. Reviewers are not given multiple projects at a time. So I don't see your point. I'm sure an editor loves hearing that a reviewer dropped a game to play something cooler.

Funny that you bring up movie reviewers. I don't know of a famous movie critic that hasn't admitted to walking out on a movie at one time or another.

As far as integrity goes, again, I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove if they decide to keep playing for another 10 grueling hours as opposed to moving on to their next review. So long as they are forthright about not finishing the game I think they they can still retain their integrity as an honest reviewer.

It is clear we believe different things so I will just say to each their own and respectfully disagree with you.

 

[Irridium]

Yes. The game was not good enough to keep the reviewer playing through the game. That says a shitload about the game. It says the game is so god damned boring/bad that you won't even be able to finish it.

If you are playing a game, and hate it so much that you don't finish it, that is a valid opinion of the game. You hated it so much you couldn't stand it enough to see it through.

 

[SanguineSymphony]

Film Critics are generally expected to watch the whole film... Its a false distinction IMO.

yeah but their different mediums with different timespans. Any halfway decent film reviewer can knock up multiple film reviews in a day (the quality may be so-so but enough to give you a feel for the film, look at any blogger who goes to sundance). Whereas games usually last between 4-5 times as long (and thats just shooters) on top of which he has to judge a plethora of different things (not to mention online multiplayer). The amount of things a game reviewer has to judge against is much higher (usually) than a film reviewer. And there is only so many hours in a day.

Simply put I'd rather have MOST games reviewed a bit worse than ALL games reviewed to their ending.

Depends on the film... I would say a good review of a film like El Topo, The Holy Mountain or Inland Empire would take quite a while to compose (to be fair I haven't read any good reviews of those films). Once you get into symbolism,allegory, and the rest it can take quite a while to dissect. As it currently is I don't take any game reviewer/critic seriously. I doubt that's going to change any time soon.

 

[IvoryTowerGamer]

It is clear we believe different things so I will just say to each their own and respectfully disagree with you.

Fair enough, although to tell the truth I'm not trying to convince you of my own opinion so much as I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.

Do you believe he should finish the game because a game could still be considered good even if the first half is horrible? Otherwise I just don't see how playing till the end would make it a better review.