OPM Batman Arkham City Reviewer Is Pissed Off At Accusations of Corruption

Check out the latest from the OPM review saga.

[DevilishSix]

and never thought of corruption, maybe because I am a multiple platform owner and not a fanboy. It was nice to see the reviewers defense and based off the first game I do not question his score for the upcoming title.

I sense some major crow eating in a few days when the embargo lifts and this game gets huge review scores.

[yesmynameissumo]

The only thing that bothers me is reviewing the entirety of a game you haven't completely played. It makes no sense to me. I don't care about deadlines or whatever excuse they try to use. It's wrong and shouldn't condoned or excused.

[lashes2ashes]

i agree with you but that's the way it works. it has always been that way with reviews they just don't talk about it often

[felonycarclub]

i understand at what you are saying but i really doubt it that people will play the whole game through then review it, its just impossible

[LOGICWINS]

What about 70-80 hour RPGs?

[WiIIiam]

I agree, a review should be just that- a review of an entire product, not just the first few hours or so and a couple of rounds of multiplayer. It's terribly misleading, not to mention half-assed, as it can ignore entire aspects of gameplay that aren't present in the first part of the game while also ignoring potential flaws, like wild difficulty spikes and uneven pacing, that can be present later on.
Critics should instead post first impressions of the game, then full reviews after they have completed it. This way, even if readers are too excited about a game to wait for the full review, they'll have a good enough sense of its quality that they can make a reasonable decision as to whether they should spend their money on it.

[Soldierone]

Not entirely true. The only people seeing this as possible is the FPS crowd thats used to 4 or 5 hour single player. Saying this is like stating "oh you gotta wait til your prestige 5 times in COD"

Games like Batman have a repetitive nature, and everyone knows that for a fact. Once you unlock the gadgets, do a majority of the moves, and see a majority of the game you have a really good grasp of what the game is. The only thing you really can't comment on are the later battles, bosses, and storyline moments. However if the game is sub-par to not good up until that point....then its still not a good game.

Fact of the matter is its a business. The man with the first review will get a crap ton more hits and readers than the guy that waits a week or two to finish the game. Along with that each reviewer probably has about 4 or 5 games sitting on his desk each week.

[Pikajew]

And if the game is hyped it will get a 10/10

[yesmynameissumo]

@MAiKU
Look, I didn't go see Fellowship of the Ring, watch 40 minutes of it and decide it was good. Games are a complete package, they aren't just the early stages of gameplay. Personally, I take into account the story, the gameplay, and is it fun. All of that has a bearing the entire game. I'm not asking for a play by play detail of every level, boss, spoiler, etc. I'm asking what the people that play entire games and review them currently do - review the game, not the dev or the hype.

@LOGICWINS
What about a 70-80hr RPG? If you're going to review it, REVIEW it. If there's a story in that 70-80hrs, I'd like to know if it's worth the investment, not just the first 8hrs.

@Soldierone
"Saying this is like stating oh you gotta wait til your prestige 5 times in COD"

Not at all. Leveling up in the MP of a game is entirely different from playing the entire SP of a game and reviewing it. I can wait for a separate MP review. I'd prefer to wait and get honest reviews, than sit through the lunacy of this generation.

[aCasualGamer]

@yesmynameissumo

This reviewer got pissed off because he was being attacked for something he didn't do. It is fair to say that he had the right to defend himself in a way that protected his reputation as a journalist.

I totally agree with you, there should be no excuse for not finishing the game. Someday they have to take a reality pill and understand that the reason they are being payed money is because they play videogames and tell people what grade it deserves.

I absolutely think it's a necessity to finish the game before labeling a grade in their magazine.

You can't just use the excuse "it's the reality.. we don't have enough time for playing these games". Then you shouldn't tell your boss you finished playing the game and you have a verdict ready.

It's not corruption for being such a high score. But atleast finish the godamn game. I mean damnit, you have the best job in the world, and you're to lazy to finish the game?

It's like getting to test drive super cars and saying "yeaaah, i didn't want to do an extra lap to test the suspension"

Stupid.... just plain and simply stupid.

[Saladfax]

Yeah... there are plenty of people in the world who are not given sufficient time in which to complete assigned work. If they tell their boss, I need more time, their boss will probably fire them and find someone who can work faster, will work in off hours without pay, or will simply lie about having work done.

I don't really agree with it, but I'm sure the reviewer would rather keep his job and maybe skimp on a couple hours of the game than either not get paid for work or get fired for not working quickly enough.

Although very clearly it's accepted practice to not finish a game, or he wouldn't say so in a public forum. Hell, they're probably given specific guidelines for how much of a game played is sufficient for review.

[WrAiTh Sp3cTr3]

Let's keep it real, people are mad they gave a multiplat a 10.

[iWishTifaWasReal]

i bet most of the reviewers today havent finished Dark Souls yet. but they still gave it a high score.

[vortis]

Dude, reviewers get the game weeks before the embargo. They usually get to play the game two weeks before it ships so that the review will be done in time.

Only an idiot would spend two weeks on a game and not finish it and the review in time. That, or he's missing of both his thumbs.

[snipes101]

One thing about reviewing on deadline though: a review goes for more the feel and quality of a game. They want to tell you how the game plays, how the story goes and then a general idea of how other features work. You do not necessarily have to complete every side quest, find every secret, or play every multiplayer map to get an a strong feel for the game to where you can write a review.

[yesmynameissumo]

@MAiKU
Haha, what's up with the hostility? Did I shit in your bed or something? I'm not a game reviewer, but if I were, I would play the entire game before reviewing it. Of course the realization a game is "good" or not is different when an unpaid consumer is playing it for half a day. There are plenty of games that have rough beginnings and turn around later in the game. Alan Wake, Heavy Rain, Heavenly Sword, Fallout 3, Assassin's Creed 2, Fable 2 (to name a few) all fall in this category for me personally. Is there something you're not understanding in that regard? You're comparing paid reviewers to people who buy or rent the game. It's completely different.

Movies or games, it doesn't matter. They're both forms of entertainment, that you judge after experiencing. Since you missed it in my last reply here it is again. Read it slow or have someone read it to you. Maybe draw it out in crayon? - "I'm not asking for a play by play detail of every level, boss, spoiler, etc. I'm asking what the people that play entire games and review them currently do - review the game, not the dev or the hype. "

Reviewing a game you've fully played isn't some new, crazy idea. C'mon.

Derp.

[Noctis Aftermath]

This is part of the reason i never bother with early reviews, they are early because they are always going to say good things about the game, it's part of the deal with the publisher, it's the only reason the magazine gets the early review in the first place.

It doesn't matter if the game is godlike or sh!t, never depend on early reviews.

[Pozzle]

I agree tbh. If I'm reading a review about a game like Batman, I want to know about the ENTIRE product. For example, a lot of people were disappointed with the final boss and thought it detracted from the entire game's experience. That's something some gamers might want to know. It probably wouldn't put anybody off buying the game, but many people want to know details like that. Not just info about the beginning half.

Though I've heard of many reviewers being unable to access multiplayer modes in games before their release, and since they are expected to release reviews by a certain time, they should definitely say whether or not they are reviewing an entire game, or just single player mode or the first half of a game.

[sjaakiejj]

Guys, use your brains please.

Do you honestly think a reviewer wouldn't complete a game if he had sufficient time to do so? When a reviewer gets a game, the publisher of the magazine he works for sets a deadline. This guy had 2 days to play the game AND write a review about it. Clearly that's not enough time to complete a game as big as Arkham City, so he did what every other reviewer does, and submitted a review about everything he did know about the game after his playtime. And in the end, it's not really going to make that much of a difference, because if the first 10 hours of a game rock, it's very unlikely that the next ones don't.

[HowarthsNJ]

Looks like this guy wanted to give it an "11" when he did finally finish it :-)

[Baka-akaB]

@MAiKU

Some genres do require more than 4-5 hours , especially if their gameplays truly unlock over time .

Clocking hours also prevent looking like an utter morons claiming the IA in GT5 is sh*t , when you havent gone past lvl 10 , namely the beginner areas .

And as a general rule of thumb , finishing or advancing in deoth through the game , at least prove that the reviewer , whatever his opinion , is not some dude doing a rush job , but actually giving you accurate details and doing his job .

Let's not kid ourself , even the dumbest of the dumbest fighting games and/or even anime based fighting games needs you to play more than a mere few hours to get a comprehensive geist of it .

If we dont need them to actually play the games and just clock 2-4 hours to get it ? Then by their own admissions reviewer are useless , and gameplay feed are more informative .

[TheMailman]

Oh men the stupidity of the this.. Score with a 10 a game you didn't even finish..

[Jeff257]

I expect a lot more reviewers will feel as he did about the game and give it high marks as well. I know I can't wait to play it for myself and have been hyped for it since it was announced. Also everything that has been shown about the game so far just looks like Rocksteady really has improved everything that was great in AA. I am glad this reviewer is standing up for him self as well.

[Merrill]

"Reviewing" a game without fully playing through the experience is not a legitimate review.

You could give a pretty credible preview of the final build and your impressions(be it negative/positive) up to that point, but NOT a final say on the product.

Imagine if movie reviews were like this, CD reviews, etc..

[Pro_TactX]

It does not take that long to figure out if a game is good or not. Do you really think a reviewer needs to get to the end to figure out if a game is worth playing?

[Merrill]

I agree, it doesn't take that long to figure out if the game is "good or not". But that is where a "preview" comes in and tells us how great the game is so far. NOT how great it is in full, as he/her hasn't played the game in its entirety to give that opinion.

This is a perfect example as to why Video Games Reviews written in the magazine medium are antiquated. The review had to be published by a certain date to be printed, thus he couldn't write a proper and fully realized/credible review.

[Dr Face Doctor]

To be fair it typically doesn't take 8-80 hours to watch a movie or listen to a CD. I say 8-80 because the differences in game lengths are massive, variable and unpredictable. I'd gander that the reviewer played it nonstop for those two days he had and still didn't finish it. In an odd way it might be a testent to the game's size.

[digitaledge]

And let's not forget that he didn't just have 2 days to play the game - he had just 2 days to play it AND write the review in time for publishing. That's quite a deadline.

[DevilishSix]

By your logic I guess we won't see a review for Skyrim until early next year since the developers have come out and said there are hundreds of dungeons and 300 hours of gameplay.

Comparing an hour long music CD or a couple hour movie to a game that will take roughly 40 hours to finish doesn't make sense, sorry.

[Merrill]

Clearly listening to a CD is less time demanding than an 80 hour RPG. What I am saying is, you don't listen to half of it and determine its worth. You don't play half a game and give it a score, you give it a "so far I really like it/hate it"

I really liked FF13 for the first 10-20 hours, but after I continued through to the end I realized it wasn't a good game(in my opinion)
Had I reviewed the games based on my 10-20 hour play through it would have been drastically different from my final review.

[Dr Face Doctor]

So are you then saying that all RPG reviews are null because the reviewers didn't have enough time to play through the full games?

[badjournalism]

Bullshit. It doesn't take 300hrs to play through the story quests to the end. I'd be surprised if it took 30hrs, if you just follow the main quest path. The quality of the story and whether or not the ending is halfassed (this can be stated w/o psoilers, btw) should be part of the review.

Not finishing, at a bare minimum, the main story is a halfassed non-review.

[Soldierone]

@badjournalism

That is called "double standards" how is it BS? Just like the comment above where "multiplayer doesnt matter" because he couldn't come up with a logical explanation to my comment about how long it takes to "complete" that.

You are reviewing a GAME and people are mad that he didn't review the FULL GAME, by those standards the side quests are a part of the FULL GAME. Either you want it or you don't. Saying the side quests don't matter doesn't make sense based on these arguments. They still add something to the game and still have a storyline to them. You as a gamer would never breeze through the main storyline and call it complete would you?

[BoneIdle]

By using that logic Star wars the Old republic can never be reviewed so as it has no ending.

[XLR8pro]

Hey there dumb ass. Would you like to know something? After he wrote the article he finished the game. He sent his editor a text asking(after he finished the game) if he could change it from 10/10 to 11/10. Still think its not a review?

[Merrill]

Yes, yes I do still think it's not a review.

If he would have just beat the game before he wrote the review he could have given it the 11/10 in the first place....

Sincerely,
Dumb Ass.

P.S.
*hugs*

[TheTwelve]

Once you decide to let someone else tell you if a game is good or not, rather than buy the game for yourself, you can't complain if their way of playing the game isn't to your standards. You have given them that power over your purchase, and have let others decide for you if a game is worth your time.

"Reviewers help us to save money on horrible games!" might be the rebuttal. Well, ok. But as the industry gets bigger and bigger, and there are more and more games being made, which are also bigger and bigger, it's inevitable that we will get lamer and lamer reviews. As review sites compete with each other to get that first review out, there will be less and less time to truly examine a game.

As a result, you have a game like Arhkam City given a review based on an unfinished experience. Is this the standard by which we should spend our money?

It will turn out that the best way to figure out if a game is good is through word of mouth...the old fashioned way.

12

[DevilishSix]

"Once you decide to let someone else tell you if a game is good or not, rather than buy the game for yourself, you can't complain if their way of playing the game isn't to your standards. You have given them that power over your purchase, and have let others decide for you if a game is worth your time".

Excellent point and well communicated

[ChocolateGiddyUp]

I don't really care either way - this shit happens all the time - but I found this pretty funny...

"I’ve been taken on junkets and plied with free booze and t-shirts. But one thing I have never done, and never will do, is let PR dictate my opinions."

This dude isn't really selling me on his integrity.

[InTheLab]

I didn't even play the game and I'm giving it a 10/10. The good news is, I don't get paid for reviews...

[Garethvk]

Reviews are paid for and sold all the time, this is nothing new. Publications do not get exclusives without paying for them or negotiating deals 90% of the time.

[LewisDenby]

There is, of course, a huge difference between payment and negotiation. A paid-for review is absolutely unacceptable. But a coverage deal? That's cool. As long as the deal doesn't stipulate what sort of review a game can get, and as long as money doesn't change hands in a way that could compromise integrity, it's just doing business.

[Garethvk]

True but I have yet to see one negotiated deal where the game got less than an 85% rating.

[LewisDenby]

@Garethvk That's because a publication wouldn't bother trying to strike a deal with a publisher whose game it wasn't fairly certain it was going to love. There's nothing in it for anyone.

[Kostchtchie]

nice, although i dont belive any reviewers crap or other people on the net, i go out and try the product myself, if its great cool if not i just sell that crap straight back, there really need to be a change in the gaming in industry regarding reviews, i think they should really stop adding a pointless score to the games and just focus on the review instead, and gamers need get there arse kicked for needing some score out 10 bullshit in order for them to be picking up these game, the reviews should be enough to make you want the game or not, no some lame number

[Fatal Blow]

I loved the first game and am gonna love this game more due to it being an open world an all. Cant wait to be batman jump and fly around the roofs lol

[BrianC6234]

This is too funny. Does it matter though? I doubt anyone is waiting for reviews on this game to buy it. Anyone who liked Arkham Asylum is buying it. If you aren't sure ait for gamers to say what they think. Arkham City was great so I'm sure Arkham City will be too.

[DigitalAnalog]

Let's not forget these games are given to them only weeks/sometimes days before it gets released to the public.

The whole point of a review is to give them an explanation of the gameplay, sound, visual fidelity and story and then rate it based on how each of these area perform. I don't need to play an entire WRPG or sandbox to find out if a texture quality is bad knowing I would run back and forth in the same area MULTIPLE TIMES. As for the story (which requires a completion) is only been given a basic premise or summary in order not to have any spoiled moments.

This is why we have TEXT in the reviews, a feature that is severely OVERLOOKED by the masses. Ironically they all complain about score and wonder how it got there in the first place. It is as if text was just meaningless banter to sum up the reviewers ego and is entirely unrelatable to the score.

Well it pays to read the review to see if it adds up. So far, from what I've read there's nothing I've seen that doesn't justify the review score.

[Unicron]

How would you review something like The Usual Suspects then? Are you saying that seeing the first half of it is enough to make a judgment?

[Nada Nuff]

Watching a 2-hour movie is a far different experience than reviewing a game, which can take many hours (25+ in this game) to experience in it's entirety.

Do I have to eat every item on a restaurant's menu before I review it in the weekend newspaper? If I don't, people will complain that I'm not reviewing the ENTIRE restaurant--only the dishes I bothered to sample.

[DigitalAnalog]

"Are you saying that seeing the first half of it is enough to make a judgment?"

As I have mentioned earlier, the whole point of a review is to give the DETAILS of the game/book/movie. If you wanted a whole part of the said product, then you must be looking for a walkthrough or a novel. The best kinds of review are the ones that gives the most relevant points without revealing too much.

For example, I can say:

"Uncharted 2 is a beautiful game with a action-pack story with gameplay that can make you feel as if you are part of set-action piece in a movie. Fans of the action-adventure would definitely want to pick this up"

There, that alone can be considered a small sample of a review. Notice I did NOT HAVE TO REVEAL ANYTHING other than points relevant to the game. That is what expected buyers need to know. As a gaming consumer, I don't want to know the whole aspect of the game knowing it comes with spoilers.

Here are the points I need to KNOW in reviews:

- Is it fun?
- Are the controls simple or troublesome?
- Are the graphics consistent, artistic, or messy/buggy
- Is there ANYTHING that can be improved upon?

That's it, I really don't NEED an epic 10+ page review of how it's the "|BESSTEST THINGTZZ EVURRZZ, check out my leetz composition skilzzz", but if that's your idea of a review, then you should ignore scores altogether.

[Nada Nuff]

Raise your hand if you decided you were going to buy Arkham City long ago, regardless of what reviewers said.

Raise your hand if any reviews you read before a game comes out only nudges you, and doesn't make the decision for you.

Raise your hand if you don't feel the need to respond to anonymous complainers who have nothing better to do than moan about someone else's opinion.

[banner]

I can't wait for this game... I'm almost sure this game will be MY game of the year.

Let the haters hate, I hope you get that print on the back of the box...

I don't have to play a game all the way through to know it's fvcking awesome before I finish it.

[ezcex]

Anybody whose played the first game would clearly see why it getting a perfect score is a no brainer. The first one was awesome and should be expected from the sequel.

[Perez]

I've never played Arkham and yet due to reviews and forums i'm pretty sure that the first one was great and that the second one should live up to that or surpass it.

Theres no bound in stone rule that "thou shalt take everything a reviewer says as 100% correct" simply because its an opinion maybe a bought one or not bought its still an opinion and if it tweaks every cynical bone in your body, rent the product and try it out.

Until you've worked in the print industry and worked to a print deadline you can voice your thoughts to the roof you dont mess with a deadline for an product that your magazine has paid for exclusive first review.

Print media is generally in decline due to rising costs and higher internet global access so wasting time and money is commercially stupid.

(all my opinion)

[Ness-Psi]

I always thought a review was to review the whole product not just tell us if its good or not.
most gamers want to know game length, control scheme and feel, graphics, music, feel of the game how it compares to previous games in the series. what bugs if any or downsides to it. plus throw in the reviewers own opinions and spin on things and you have a review.
also its a service for gamers so that they can trust in spending their 40 - 50 notes on said game as that is why most people read reviews to help with their purchase.

but sadly more and more latley it does feel like gaming journalism is reviewing the hype and company P.R than the actual game its self.

not that arkham asylum isn't going to be awesome anyway.

[MasterD919]

I'll be getting both games at the same time soon enough...I'll make up my own mind.

[sparta76]

Preview = first few hours...
Review = complete game...
You're welcome!!

[rob6021]

Well here's how I see it, the review in particular may be giving his own honest opinion of the game, but there's a good chance Warner chose his outlet for the review first because they know he loved the series and batman and would give a favorable review. Why would publishers agree to use his outlet as the first review? It's not like OPM Australia is going to outbid IGN.

Yes everyone has a right to question credibility, it's ridiculous that this guys getting all hurt about it, we all know there is good reason to question credibility in games journalism.

[schlanz]

Game looks brilliant, why don't we all just wait and experience it for ourselves before jumping all over this guy and crying wolf.

[InTheLab]

You know what? If this were Kane and Lynch 3...I'd probably call shenanigans.

The only people that want to see Batman AC score lower than a ten are the people that failed to make a half decent superhero game like all of those crappy Spider-Mans....

[MonopolyRSV]

It might not be corruption, but there is still some sort of problem for it to be given a perfect score.

[Inception]

Arkham Asylum is an amazing game. I have no doubt that Arkham City will be as amazing as Arkham Asylum ^^
So, i don't care even the reviewers will gave it 0/100 score. I will buy & play it as long as i like!

[Alos88]

"Games journalism doesn’t have a sterling record of quality and integrity"
I see what you did there.

[bunfighterii]

Where did all this controversy come from? He gave a game a great review?

[SH0CKW4VE]

Your know who have even less integrity than video game journalists? the assholes who berate them on forums.

Its AN OPINION, STFU & deal with it.

And as for those saying "he didnt finish the game!" you can pretty much tell wether a game is enjoyable or not from the first few hours and even if the story is enjoyable.

Arkham city is 20+ hours long.....are people so niave that they think every reviewer completes a game that long? Do you think reviewers are going to complete skyrim? they didnt complete Dead Island, thats for sure.

Pretty much if a game is 20+ hours long on average hardly any reviewer will complete it and it just cements the fact as to why the best review is your own.

Half the reason why reviews exist is just because of peoples own pig ignorance and inability to be bothered to rate anything for themselves.

When you think about it your just listening to a glorified opinion piece and someone is gettting paid due to your ignorance.

[hotskys]

Good. I love it when someone with a stronger position in the entertainment industry tells some of its consumers to fuck off. I hate all these people who hide behind their computer screens running their mouth off about something, and PR reps usally just take it in the ass from them. I love it when a guy like this tells them what's really on his mind.

+1 to this guy

[geddesmond]

One thing I really hate in the gaming industry is dam reviewers and the thing I hate even worse than them is the people defending these reviewers.

Man I was so excited to finally be able to play Rage on Friday. Well that was until reviewers put a bad taste in my mouth. First of all now I'm going into playing rage thinking its a 9 hour game even though a friend told me it took him 18 hours to finish because thats what reviewers have said. Secondly when a game gets a 6 or less then it kills all hype.

Let me tell you whats wrong with his review. I know Batman is going to be a great game and I know it will get loads of perfect scores, however the part of him not finishing the game disappoints me because I have witnessed many games get scored down by reviewers because they had a bad ending. Its BS.

The whole review system needs to be changed around because its not working the way it is now.

[Graey]

Good Morning

You do know that reviewers might play the game a different way right. I read one review where he played for I think 9-12 hours not doing all the side missions in rage. He then goes on to state he played it again doing all the side missions and car battles i think and it clocked in around 8.5 or so.

Different play styles. You have to ask how does your friend play versus how the reviewer in question plays. Matter of fact just subscribe to gamefly and get the game that way and time yourself see how long it takes. The average time might be around 8-16hrs just depending on how you play.

And again reviews are just opinions based on how that person feels about a game. They really should have a secondary reviewer for the games just to add a better context to it.

I'd say play rage for yourself. I think you'll find out that the reviewer your speaking of might have a point but a flexible point depending on your own tastes.

V/R

[Graey]

Also on the note of this batman review.

How much of the game constitutes someone giving it a good review.

We can not really compare a car review to a video game review past the point that the only thing they have in common is that they are both reviewing something.

That being the case how long does it take you to review say Skyrim? If Skyrim is 300+ hours of play time and in most people's minds you have to finish and complete the "whole" game. What constitutes whole...in your opinion. If whole is 100% then that is a long time in waiting.

You have to complete every side quest in addition to the main quest. However when you look at the game as say 300+ hours and you complete say 280+ is that good enough? Then if you take the instance where your friend might play slower and its for him 400 hours and he still gives the game say a 8/10. Do you think he really needed to get that far?

For each review you have to take the game, genre and the score into consideration.

As some have stated above you really don't need to play the complete game. However I would state you do need to play a significant part of it. Not sure how much the guy that reviewed batman played, but I would think its enough to formulate an opinion(review) of what the game is like.

Let's take it from a different perspective. How long does it take for you to say eat a meal and realize you don't like it and then formulate a rating scale based on that. How long does it take you to realize that a movie sucks even if you sit through and watch the whole thing and give it a score. How long does it take you to play a game before "you" can formulate a review/opinion on the game.

V/R

[geddesmond]

I understand your point especially about Skyrim but Skyrim is an RPG and RPGS have always been reviewed differently to games like Batman AC which are very story driven games. I have never played an elder scrolls game for the story but I have played them because of their vast worlds, character progression and so on.

For RPGS because they are so big a reviewer should only be looking to give us players an insight into the world and how it works.

But for the likes of Batman they should know what the full single player experience offers because just like many other games before it, the game could start off great but get repetitive and boring towards the end.

See in RPGs a player is driven by reward and progress. In story driven games a player is driven by that story. Would you accept a review of Uncharted 3 by a reviewer who only played the first 5 chapters of the game?

I wouldn't for the simple fact that ND could have done research and found 90% of gamers didn't finish their game so they decide to fill the first half with all their great ideas and just throw in the other half of the game to fill time.

Its happened a lot with games and this works both ways. Some games have started of boring and slow but gotten way better towards the end. So how many games that score a 10 really deserved an 8 because the reviewer didn't have time to finish the whole thing and how many games got a 6 because the reviewer never seen the true beauty a game had to offer.

[Redempteur]

if skyrim takes 300hours to get to 100% then i'm asking for a reviewer to finish the main story and to judge the amount of side quests in his review .nobody is asking a 100% clear save before reviewing , but a minimum should be done ( each time you review )

[Graey]

@ Redempteur

I understand what your saying. But some people are stating that batman or rather all games should be completely played before offering a review.

Based on that I'm asking when is it safe to review a game or are we basing the way it should be reviewed based on the genre of the game?

If its the first case then Skyrim, batman and every game should be played completely to warrant a review. On the other hand if we can say that we can play a certain percentage then perhaps the person that reviewed batman did a legitimate job.

I'm not sure just asking for general inquiry.

V/R

[mrsatan]

I have a hard time believing any game deserves a 10/10. Like the guy from Dice says, there always seems to be room for improvement.

It better be DAMN good and you better justify the hell out of why it deserves it.

[Buff1044]

Its a catch 22. If someone posts an early review, most of you complain it was rushed or bought. If someone beats the entire game and posts a review a week and a half after release, none of you read it. ;)

[DeeZee]

This is true.

[taijutsu363]

Who cares!

"Arkhum City is a game that consoles need! But not the one it deserves!"

LOL

[kasser]

If he can't endure what his readers think about him then he should not keep writing. A writer should accept what other people think without an attitude. You trying to win your readers' trust, not going in a war against them!

Also, giving a perfect mark or a very low mark is a high risk. You just raised a lot of expectations and if one's standard did not meet his high expectations, it will produce a disappointing experience hence that person will assume you just lied to sell the game.

[zink949]

...serious?

What a drama queen!! Regardless of whether ccrruption claims are valid or not, why would you let that bother you? Let alone jotting down a full explaination of reasons for the criticizm...

[k4rma]

If he didn't play it the entire way through and then some. Preferably at least twice to be sure he fully understands if the game has a slow burn quality to it or not, like Dead Island or other lengthy games that don't have instant arcade appeal, then I don't care about his opinion on the game, whether its positive or negative. I only care about reviewers opinions when they have thoroughly explored every aspect of a game, which is something that doesn't happen often these days with modern reviewers. They need more time to review the games. They should be spending a week with the games, to see if it has lasting appeal etc.

[PJF_Josh]

Well I read what the Reviewer wrote (Stop being jerks, jerks) and I like this guy more and more.

A lot of responses have come in on this and the majority of them are from people who don't write reviews... and then tell everyone how the process works.

I -do- write reviews, and I can tell you (for me and people in the industry I know anyway) that's it's not as simple as it appears. Magazines (especially) have longer lead times so they'll usually have less time with a game before publication. For some games, they'll have time, but for others it's impossible to play through the entire game before writing a review. It's not "lazy" and it's not BS. Readers expect the latest reviews in their monthly copies of these magazines. To get them you'll just have to accept the fact that some reviews are based on overall impressions of some or most of the game being played.

Another factor here is the misconception that all reviewers have a copy of a game weeks or months before an embargo lifts. Not true, not true at all. Bigger outlets are usually sent copies as early as possible, but many publishers farm that job out to PR firms and they don't always get it right. Games may show up early, they may show up two days before the embargo lifts, they may even show up the gay the embargo lifts.

There's also the simple fact that most publishers and developers know whether they have hit or a turd on their hands. Have you noticed that reviews of big games that generally score well are up a good week or two in advance of release? Copies are made available, sent early and given no embargo. They know it's good and they want everyone else to know too. Then on the flip side, a game is out and no review is up... maybe for a week after release. You can pretty much guarantee that it's below average and the publishers know it. More likely than not, review copies weren't sent out until the day of release or perhaps a day or to before at best.

Reviewing games sounds like the greatest job in the world, until you actually do it. It's a lot of work and it takes a lot of time to play through something, experience as much of it as you can, make an informed impression and write up an article, making sure you cover all the important points. Oh, and if it's for a magazine, it all has to fit in the allotted space your editor gives you for that particular game, two pages or two paragraphs.

Calling reviewers lazy because they didn't finish a game before reviewing it is simply uninformed BS. There are dozens of factors that go into writing a review, including when you get them game, how many games you currently have to review and deadlines. There are only so many hours in a day and if you can't play through an entire game because of time constraints, you have to at least play through enough to make an informed opinion on it (at least that's how I feel). Honestly, how many games have you felt were terrible for the first half that suddenly became great in the second half or vice versa? You'll pretty much know with most games how it's going to go simply because of the repetitive nature of them.

Sure, games journalism has taken a number of black eyes in the past, some deserved, some not, but it's up to the writers now to do their best to serve their readers and listeners and the majority of them (that I personally know anyway) do exactly that.

[PJF_Josh]

lol, wow, sorry, i didn't realize how much I wrote there.

[Garrison]

Its funny why when the subject of the similarities of games journalism and s#it come up these so called "game professionals" come up with the utter BS defense about time constraints and whatnot.
A S#it review is a s#it review not matter what circumstance made it so. Sorry
We didn't have enough time...
The copy came up right on the release date...
My boss told me to have a review in 2 hours and gave me the game right now!!!!
Granted, there is a market out there for S#it reviews thank goodness, a lot of gamers out there don't even read the reviews really, they just look at a score and move on.

As you can tell there are even posters out here DEFENDING s#it reviews. "It's alright if the reviewer just looked at the opening screen and wrote what he came up with and slapped a rating on it".

I don't know about you guys but I like quality, but hey.. you get what you want huh

[XLR8pro]

Wow I have never seen such retarded comments in all my life. Did anyone actually read the article that this refers to? HE SAYS HE FINISHES THE GOD DAMN GAME! No he didn't finish it before writing the review but once he did finish the game he even asked his editor if he could change it from 10/10 to 11/10 (dedication!). And I'm not sure how many of you actually are fans but me (and the guys who are fans from their facebook page) just laugh at your silly comments. If you don't like early reviews of people doing unfinished games go troll at every other game reviewer (yepp they all do it!)

[Grandclover]

Agreed.

[Grandclover]

You "gamers" are the same morons who'd cry that there wasn't a decent review out 3 weeks after a new release. Now why is that??? ohhh ya cause you have to play the WHOLE game, You gotta unlock every secert, and you have to beat the game on uber hard difficulty before you can give me a clear and fluid reason to buy, you also have to tell me every plot point and well.......hell! just tell me about the whole game ill save my 3 weeks and 60 dollars game over, YA NOW THINGS ARE SOOO MUCH BETTER!!!

[Grandclover]

Also i want to be as LOUDLY CLEAR AS I CAN BE. If you buy a game off only a review....your an idoit. Youtube is wonderfull not to mention "NEWS" articles that are fact. Not a writers OPINION, and opinon you two year olds feel the need to attack. Move out of your parents basement then i'll accept your contributions to the gaming world.

[TheWolverine]

Dont care, still want.