If a game is shit then they do not need to finish it. Why? Because it's shit that's why. It's not going to get better just because they finished it.
Funny thing is, I can't recall off the top of head a single game that changed for the better towards the end. I can remember several cases of the opposite, though (looking at you, Indigo Prophecy). So I guess reviewers should try to play untill the end, if only to warn us not to bother after that point of no return.Necator15 said: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.
So, you think they should have to finish the game just because your Dad hates his job?RedEyesBlackGamer said:I'd still expect the reviewer to do the main/story quests. Most people are bringing up FFXIII. I have no sympathy for a person who plays games and then writes about the games for a living. Woe is he who has to play a bad game. Suck it up and finish the game. I don't care how long it is. My dad works in a factory 50-72 hours a week. I just can't summon up sympathy for a professional reviewer.
No, they have a job to do. My point was that reviewers have a nice gig compared to most people. Why is it wrong to expect a reviewer to have finished a game when I read their review? If they can't be trusted to finish a video game then I don't see why they should keep their job.IvoryTowerGamer said:If a game is so bad that the reviewer couldn't finish it, I would rather they move on to reviewing a game that I might actually play.
So, you think they should have to finish the game just because your Dad hates his job?RedEyesBlackGamer said:I'd still expect the reviewer to do the main/story quests. Most people are bringing up FFXIII. I have no sympathy for a person who plays games and then writes about the games for a living. Woe is he who has to play a bad game. Suck it up and finish the game. I don't care how long it is. My dad works in a factory 50-72 hours a week. I just can't summon up sympathy for a professional reviewer.
Their job is to review games. If a game is so bad that they want to stop playing it half way through, how is trudging through the second half going to make their review any better? Like I said in my other post, I'd rather have them move on to something that might actually be good. That would be a much more productive option. It's better for their audience, too.RedEyesBlackGamer said:No, they have a job to do. My point was that reviewers have a nice gig compared to most people. Why is it wrong to expect a reviewer to have finished a game when I read their review? If they can't be trusted to finish a video game then I don't see why they should keep their job.IvoryTowerGamer said:If a game is so bad that the reviewer couldn't finish it, I would rather they move on to reviewing a game that I might actually play.
So, you think they should have to finish the game just because your Dad hates his job?RedEyesBlackGamer said:I'd still expect the reviewer to do the main/story quests. Most people are bringing up FFXIII. I have no sympathy for a person who plays games and then writes about the games for a living. Woe is he who has to play a bad game. Suck it up and finish the game. I don't care how long it is. My dad works in a factory 50-72 hours a week. I just can't summon up sympathy for a professional reviewer.
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.IvoryTowerGamer said:Their job is to review games. If a game is so bad that they want to stop playing it half way through, how is trudging through the second half going to make their review any better? Like I said in my other post, I'd rather have them move on to something that might actually be good. That would be a much more productive option. It's better for their audience, too.RedEyesBlackGamer said:No, they have a job to do. My point was that reviewers have a nice gig compared to most people. Why is it wrong to expect a reviewer to have finished a game when I read their review? If they can't be trusted to finish a video game then I don't see why they should keep their job.IvoryTowerGamer said:If a game is so bad that the reviewer couldn't finish it, I would rather they move on to reviewing a game that I might actually play.
So, you think they should have to finish the game just because your Dad hates his job?RedEyesBlackGamer said:I'd still expect the reviewer to do the main/story quests. Most people are bringing up FFXIII. I have no sympathy for a person who plays games and then writes about the games for a living. Woe is he who has to play a bad game. Suck it up and finish the game. I don't care how long it is. My dad works in a factory 50-72 hours a week. I just can't summon up sympathy for a professional reviewer.
This.Necator15 said: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.