Poll: Can a review be valid if the reviewer did not finish the game in question?
- Thread starter Lord Doomhammer
- Start date
If the game sucks so hard that being payed isn't enough motivation to finish playing it, I think he has enough for a review.bibblles said:
some games can boast "it gets better later" as a selling point like Heavy Rain or FF13
and some games are worth suffering through just to see the end. Like Modern Warfare 2
but most of the insufferable games are samey and boring all the way through with out a flicker of hope that something interesting will happen like Too Human, GTA 4, Stranglehold or Prey. they just don't have any diversity in their gameplay and if you don't like the beginning you won't like the middle or the end.
A reviewer should have a pretty good idea about the game about halfway through so I think it can be mostly valid, I do not think a game can make up for itself in the last half or so but a reviewer should finish a game all the way to get the full picture and give an accurate review. Reviews do not really matter to me and they shouldn?t for a lot of people. Just because a reviewer gives it a 7 or says it is bad does not mean someone would not like it. Like what others said is a critic not a reviewer and what he says does not affect my choice in buying a game, (even though I love his show, respect his views and his ideas) I watch his show because it is entertain and I like to hear what he has to say. Most of his criticism helps me to understand the problems in video games and how to improve on them when I become a game designer. Sorry if I got off topic. Also why did you add that stupid girl scout cookies! option?!bibblles said:
it depends entirely on the review. in this case, yahtzee's review is perfectly "valid." everything he says about the gameplay is true, regardless of how far he played into the story. and since he says that he didn't finish the game, the viewer knows where his opinion is coming from.
now, giving a game an arbitrary score might be unfair without finishing the game, but thats unrelated to yahtzee.
now, giving a game an arbitrary score might be unfair without finishing the game, but thats unrelated to yahtzee.
Yahtzee isn't a game critic he is a comedian over anything else. Heck, I guess I wouldn't blame a reviewer if the game was craptastic.
It depends on the game.
You don't have to play 100 hours of Fallout 3 in order to review it. It is a sandbox game and you can write up a good review without having gotten to the end. On the other hand, if a person had only played four hours of KotOR 1...they really wouldn't be able to review that game properly.
Some games are slow burns and evolve over time, so that you do need to finish it for a complete review. Some games are similar from beginning to end and you can write a good review after only playing half of it.
Depends on the game.
It also depends on what the review is trying to do...what sort of review it is. I see a number of reviews that are little more than comments on gameplay and polygon count...you don't actually have to play hardly any of a game to get that information. But there are other types of reviews that want to talk about story arc efficacy or difficulty curves from beginning to end...reviews like that clearly need the reviewer to have finished the game.
Depends on the review.
You don't have to play 100 hours of Fallout 3 in order to review it. It is a sandbox game and you can write up a good review without having gotten to the end. On the other hand, if a person had only played four hours of KotOR 1...they really wouldn't be able to review that game properly.
Some games are slow burns and evolve over time, so that you do need to finish it for a complete review. Some games are similar from beginning to end and you can write a good review after only playing half of it.
Depends on the game.
It also depends on what the review is trying to do...what sort of review it is. I see a number of reviews that are little more than comments on gameplay and polygon count...you don't actually have to play hardly any of a game to get that information. But there are other types of reviews that want to talk about story arc efficacy or difficulty curves from beginning to end...reviews like that clearly need the reviewer to have finished the game.
Depends on the review.
Yahtzee isn't really a reviewer, he is a critic/comedian. His insights are a mix of worthwhile but personal, and purely personal, perspectives that are there to spark discussion and be funny. As a reviewer, Yahtzee isn't very good, but he is funny and intelligent. But broadly, yes, a reviewer can speak on a game fairly without finishing, assuming he plays a decent percentage of the game. Why? Well, such a review may be somewhat incomplete, but if a designer fails to present the core game concepts before too long, and set the general tone and mechanics for the game, then the designer has failed, and deserves the bad press.
Absolutely. As long as they are up front about this fact and detail exactly where they got up to and why they didn't bother going any further. You can still review a bad meal without having to eat every last crumb. You just need to know what the experience of playing the game is like. They're not films.
I don't think he/she can criticize on the story too much if they didn't beat the game, or if they didn't play that far into it. However depending on how much they actually played, I believe they can judge gameplay, voice acting, graphics, and sound with enough personal experience. As long as their review has facts supporting their opinion and not 'just because', I'd be fine with that.
No, as similarly no-one had to complete an MMO before they could review it?
Sometimes you only need a bite of a turd sandwich to know you aint gonna like the rest of it.
- So as the Prometherion sayeth.
Sometimes you only need a bite of a turd sandwich to know you aint gonna like the rest of it.
- So as the Prometherion sayeth.
Typically, when Yahtzee doesn't finish a review it's because he's "bored or frustrated [to the point that the game is unpleasant]." Simply put, a game should be fun or engaging enough to keep the player interested long enough to see the end. If you're slogging through the game and hating every second of it just to see end-game content, you're a perfectionist with a masochistic streak.
Therefore, it's perfectly legitimate for a reviewer to say that the game wasn't fun or engaging enough to merit a full play-through.
For example, I wanted to like Dead Rising, but the difficulty, unresponsive controls, and bad AI eventually wore me down to the point that I hated playing it. Now, if I say that the game annoyed me so much that I couldn't bring myself to finish it, then I have given my opinion on the game (a review), and it's perfectly legitimate because I'm giving you a reason for not buying it, i.e. in my opinion, I wouldn't recommend it because the mechanics were so unpleasant to me that it rendered the game frustrating to the point that I had to stop.
Therefore, it's perfectly legitimate for a reviewer to say that the game wasn't fun or engaging enough to merit a full play-through.
For example, I wanted to like Dead Rising, but the difficulty, unresponsive controls, and bad AI eventually wore me down to the point that I hated playing it. Now, if I say that the game annoyed me so much that I couldn't bring myself to finish it, then I have given my opinion on the game (a review), and it's perfectly legitimate because I'm giving you a reason for not buying it, i.e. in my opinion, I wouldn't recommend it because the mechanics were so unpleasant to me that it rendered the game frustrating to the point that I had to stop.
Assuming a critic has gone through the great bulk of a movie/game, I think they can offer up a proper review of the item in question. Have you ever sat through a movie/book/game that you absolutely hated... only to have the thing become surprisingly good at the very end?
I can't think of a single one. If my hatred has risen to the point where I do not wish to continue, there's absolutely no hope that a sudden increase in quality would change my opinion (GTA IV is the closest and that started getting better after the first act). At best, you'll have a charitable thing to say about the ending combined with the cynical observation that it was too bad the rest of it wasn't anywhere near that good.
A long time ago, a movie called "Little Indian, Big City" came out and its review print accidentally left out the third reel. Roger Ebert dutifully watched the missing reel when it was supplied to him and he quoted Gene Siskel with "If the third reel had been the missing footage from Orson Welles' `The Magnificent Ambersons,' this movie still would have sucked."
And I also believe that a reviewer is under the obligation to detail his thought process, even if it leads to him acting in an unprofessional manner. If the first 20 minutes of a movie are a completely vile mess of misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc. (like a Halo deathmatch in film form), then a critic would be well in his right to walk out and dutifully report exactly why he couldn't sit through another minute more of it. It's his job to tell you what he thinks, why he thinks it, and let you make an informed decision whether you want to follow his advice or not. If he doesn't generally like horror movies, then he needs to point out in his negative review of a horror movie that he's typically not a fan. If he dislikes remakes on principal, he needs to say that in a review of Rob Zombie's Halloween. It's his job to put forth an accurate representation of his biases, whatever they may be.
His employers dictate what sort of form his reviews take on. If they want a comprehensive review of the pros and cons of any given title, then that's what they'll pay for. If they want something more akin to entertainment with many valid criticisms mixed in, then that's what they paid for.
I can't think of a single one. If my hatred has risen to the point where I do not wish to continue, there's absolutely no hope that a sudden increase in quality would change my opinion (GTA IV is the closest and that started getting better after the first act). At best, you'll have a charitable thing to say about the ending combined with the cynical observation that it was too bad the rest of it wasn't anywhere near that good.
A long time ago, a movie called "Little Indian, Big City" came out and its review print accidentally left out the third reel. Roger Ebert dutifully watched the missing reel when it was supplied to him and he quoted Gene Siskel with "If the third reel had been the missing footage from Orson Welles' `The Magnificent Ambersons,' this movie still would have sucked."
And I also believe that a reviewer is under the obligation to detail his thought process, even if it leads to him acting in an unprofessional manner. If the first 20 minutes of a movie are a completely vile mess of misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc. (like a Halo deathmatch in film form), then a critic would be well in his right to walk out and dutifully report exactly why he couldn't sit through another minute more of it. It's his job to tell you what he thinks, why he thinks it, and let you make an informed decision whether you want to follow his advice or not. If he doesn't generally like horror movies, then he needs to point out in his negative review of a horror movie that he's typically not a fan. If he dislikes remakes on principal, he needs to say that in a review of Rob Zombie's Halloween. It's his job to put forth an accurate representation of his biases, whatever they may be.
His employers dictate what sort of form his reviews take on. If they want a comprehensive review of the pros and cons of any given title, then that's what they'll pay for. If they want something more akin to entertainment with many valid criticisms mixed in, then that's what they paid for.
This depends on a game. If it's an typical RPG and the game is really long or typical shooter whit nearly no plot at all, then i don't think the rewier would have to play completely through it, but 75% of the game is a must. But if the game relies on story alot, i think it should be completed before review, what if there would be an extremely intese twist near the end of the game, which the rewiever wouldn't play. Making the review-score of the game lower.
I remember when I was younger, telling someone I didn't like some popular band (I forget which one exactly). I was told I had to listen to every single piece of sound they had ever recorded before I could form an opinion. I thought that at some point through that exercise I probably wouldn't be changing my mind. I could listen to all of them, find that I liked the very last song, and I still wouldn't like the band. I'd dislike them, except for one song.
The moral of the story is that you don't have to consume the entire thing to know whether you think it's good. Beyond a point, the best you'll get is 'bad with a decent bit'. That translates into useful-review-language as 'bad'.
The moral of the story is that you don't have to consume the entire thing to know whether you think it's good. Beyond a point, the best you'll get is 'bad with a decent bit'. That translates into useful-review-language as 'bad'.
If it's some sort of game breaking bug, mabye. If you are just lazy and want to play something else, then say that you couldn't bring yourself to play it through, don't give your impression on a half picture without telling us that you simply couldn't be bothered to look at the other side.
I get what you mean, but if you play a game for ten hours and it´s not fun...the game has done something wrong. Since a review serves a porpose of recommendation, a reviewer can never recommend a game that doesnt deliver the goods on a reasonable timeframe.
In the case of non-completions, this is usually due to the work in question being complete and total shit. This is usually very obvious, very early on. If you get 75% of the way through anything and can't think of a single competent thing it's done... it's probably safe to say Uwe Boll isn't going to turn into Orson Welles the moment you turn your back.Iwana Humpalot said: