A.J. says: "The question of whether authors should complete games before writing reviews frequently comes up. In this article, I explain why I decided to do so with plenty of examples that'll hopefully shed some light on the issue."
Sound reasoning "Good first impressions don't always stick" this was applicable to me when I played MGS V. Although it was a pretty good game overall, I have a feeling it would have got far fewer 9s and 10s if reviewers played through to the end due to it's repetitive nature, especially the repetitive nature of the story missions on Chapter 2
Lol at the disagree: So you don't mind placing reliance on reviews that were rushed out for the sake of having it out Day 1. DO you use that object inbetween your ears even?
Get with the program guys, first chapter. Review. Rate. Done. Post on n4g for instant first too review said game article for hits! Boom.... Or just give it a very low rating. S/
I think the repetitive aspect only becomes incredibly apparent if you over play the game. Any game is repetitive if you play it daily for large chunks at a time. When I find a game is becoming like this for me, I usually take a break from it for a week or two, and when I return it's just as fun and enjoyable as it was day one (although doing this with mgs5 has left me with losin a lot of my best staff from FOB invasions XD) I totally agree with the writers opinion, games need to be finished before reviewing. Or in the case of a game like ff6/7/8/9/X or a fallout or a skyrim that would be impossible to complete within a year for some people, at least a solid month needs to be spent with the game. We need more reviewers like this guy. Sadly the way the gaming industry operates today just doesn't allow for it if you're working for a big company that values profit over integrity and doing your job right.
Kind of true though. Certain games, people almost just give them the GOTY title without even earning it, and once reality sets in those same people are no where to be found and they stop posting and what not....they just downvote and dislike everything. It's like trying to review a movie whilst only watching about 30 minutes of it.
It's the right thing to do, always. You need to review the whole experience, The Phantom Pain is a perfect example recently, the game is still great but the lack of a good narrative in comparison of another games from the séries didn't please a lot of gamers.
I think most people knew MGS5 would have a stripped back narrative when it was announced it would be open world. You just can't deliver the same kind of story in an open world game as you would with a linear game. Another reason it should have been apparent was, the story was more or less all but finished with mgs4, there was nothing really left to tell that we didn't already know. MGS5 did tie up some remaining mysteries like the origin of the cobra units "powers" (there was no way they ALSO could have been nanomachine related XD). Kojima did his best to deliver one of the most fun tactical espionage action games to date, where we can just pick up and play an MGS scenario without having to invest hours in to watchin cutscenes and codec conversations. I know in the past I used to replay mg1/mgs2/snake eater time and time again just to get to some of my favourite parts (yes i couldve just made saves, but other games were competing for memory card space) It has also been rumored that when Kojima Productions started work on the FOX engine, it was going to be for a brand new IP but the bigwigs in Konami got scared and had them make another MGS rather than take the risk of spending all that pre-production time building an engine for a new IP. Kojima was more or less done with the franchise's story and he has tried to leave it several times in the past. Happy to see he finally gets to move on to something new.
All of the reviews of the Phantom Pain that I saw (before it was released) had the reviewer talking about end-game content (they all mentioned a twist ending), so I'm not sure what you guys are talking about when speaking of MGSV - all of the reputable sites got it well before release and did their job. I think the only places that don't finish every game before rushing out a review are places that don't get review copies, but want their review seen while it's still relevant.
Thats the ONLY way to review a game. Dont look at the internet for other reviews. No, begin the game with a clear mind and play it to the end. Then wright your review Dont review a gamegenre that you hate. You will be biased, and that is not gonna work.😋
That was one thing that always bugged me, even back in the days when gaming magazines were the go to source for reviews, you'd have people reviewing RPGs that HATED them; I remember a particularly scathing FF7 review made by a staff member who was more in to racing and sports games.
It throws off positive and negative reviews. An RPG getting a positive review from someone who only enjoys sports games could be horrible for someone that actually enjoys RPGs. It all just adds an unnecessary layer of confusion to the mix.
There should never be a review for a game the reviewer hasnt completed. Back in the day this was the norm. Now and days its like fire the game up....that's a bad ass title screen. 9 out of 10.
Cause mass effect 3.
That ending. What happened BioWare...
Ah being able to play games to the end in order to review them is a luxury most reviewers on smaller sites don't have. I did try when i first started, made myself really ill after playing Ni No Kuni for a week in 10 hour shifts after i'd got home from work in order to get it up when the embargo lifted, and then vowed to never do it again. Now I don't always play till the end. It's just not always feasible. Especially if you end up with several massive games to do at once. I can normally see where most smaller games are heading in the first few hours and larger ones after the first 10 - 20. there is no point wasting 100 hours on a terrible game because oh it might get better towards the end. It's highly unlikely to happen .
I don't mean to sound rude, but if you're not willing to finish a game then why bother reviewing it at all? It's not like you're obligated to review everything.
I am willing to finish a game. I generally aim be able to. What i am saying is that sometimes that is simply at odds with actually getting a review up in a timely manner. So i just don't insist upon it anymore. Sometimes its easily done. Especially if you're given review code way in advance of release. But i've had review code for massive games turn up just before launch day. Mad Max was a prime example. I really enjoyed the game, and i said as much, but i didn't 100% before I finished writing about it. the problem is that if you don't get a review up sharpish no bugger is going to read it. in which case there;s very little point in bothering.
Whoever reviews a game before they beat the game has no right to review said game. A review is supposed to reveal the pros and cons of the WHOLE GAME.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.