Do we need to finish games before review?

With the release of Sifu, we find ourselves stuck in another debate on if a game should be completed before it's reviewed. This time, we actually have something factual to say.

[RaidenBlack]

duh

[VenomUK]

A reviewer doesn't have to 100% a game (all side quests, collectables etc) but he/she should complete the main game to properly report on what the gameplay experience offers, and how fulfilling the many elements are from the player's perspective when they've reached the ending.

[KrillinShine]

Under that perspective, would it be acceptable for a reviewer to stop after Nier Automata's ending A and conduct a review, or only after ending E?

Where would the line be drawn in that example?

[TallDarknWavy]

Krillin, you clearly didn't understand the philosophical themes of rebirth and repeating cycles in Nier Automata. This is why the game keeps resetting itself, it doesn't actually end at the first "ending". Go watch a youtube video on the explanation of all the different philosophical metaphors in the game.

[KrillinShine]

Tall, I'm not talking about interpretations of Nier Automata's endings. Please re-read my questions.

[CorndogBurglar]

And to form an opinion on the story.

[Fullmetal_PewPew]

Then change the title to do we have to 100% a game instead of do we need to finish games before review?

[AKS]

@KrillinShrine "Ending A" isn't actually the end of the game. There is a significant amount of content in routes C and D that take place after A and B. You haven't finished the game if you stopped at A.

[LucasRuinedChildhood]

I honestly think that the article title is just trolling people for easy clicks.

[Seraphim]

@Hatchet - true. That's one reason I never use reviews or put a ton of merit into them. Opinionated drivel. As a professional, reviewers should be taking an unbiased approach to reviewing games. Rating it not for how they feel but for the games own merits and downfalls. Less of an opinion and more a matter of fact....

I can't even remember how many times I have seen a review and the writer clearly dislikes the genre or game because it's not their cup of tea. That's fine, as an individual, but not fine when you're working in the industry and your words hold far more weight than anyone else. We need unbiased un-opinionated reviews, everything else is just an opinion and everyone has one of those, just not the platform to where theirs matter.

End of the day I understand what I like and which games are worth my time, worth taking a shot on or are hands down a winner. Just because I don't necessarily enjoy a particular game doesn't mean it's not a good game. More people, imo, just need to figure out what they like and which games are worth taking a shot based on their own preferences and what they enjoy from a game. 2 cents

side note: Yes, reviewers should absolutely finish the game

[Christopher]

If there's a specific and defined ending, absolutely should finish the main story. If it's a GaaS model, then you should at least experience all of the content it has to offer at release in some way.

If you are unable to finish it, then write an opinion piece about it, don't review it.

It's interesting that some journalists put a score on a game and then tell people to read the review when the public disagrees with the score. Perhaps follow your own advice?

[LordoftheCritics]

Nah dont even need to play it.

It's the Internet. Do you what you want.

On a serious note, I'm curious how many even finished Sifu?

[purple101]

Should I read the whole review,. Or just give up half way.. 'I've got what I need' kinda thing?

[Unknown_Gamer5794]

Perhaps we can just look at the headlines and comments, as that often tells me all I need to know without having to read any of it. If reviewers can’t be bothered to do their job, why should I read their drivel?

[Aussiesummer]

Touché

[Terry_B]

Lets review only 7 of 10 songs in a music album or review only 70 minutes of a 110 minutes long movie as well ^^ Makes totally sense ..rite?

[harv052]

I understand the comparison, but there is a difference. In both the activities you mentioned, you are only passive! You have no input on the course of events. video games on the other hand you actively participate, so everything comes into play: genre, difficulty, learning curve, taste, story, etc. I do believe that if a reviewer hasn't finished a game before reviewing it though, it should be clearly stated and the reason why!

[hotnickles]

You don’t have to finish the game to make a review. I personally wouldn’t hold such a lazy opinion in high esteem.

[Crows90]

Very true. They should disclose if they finished the game or not.

[hotnickles]

There are so many reviews now. Why bother reading the one that didn’t finish? Why bother writing it haha?

Can you call it review, that’s the focus? It’s more like a preview in my opinion. Somebody’s thoughts on a game they played, there is nothing wrong with that either.

[fitofficial]

Depends on the type of review. If you're critically scoring it, yeah, finish it. If you're providing recommendations, nah, just play enough to get the gist so people can make adequate comparisons in relation to taste.

[Tacoboto]

I agree. My thoughts on Guardians of the Galaxy for example - I would recommend this game 10/10 to anyone that wants a solid well-told story and gameplay.

Critically though, my opinion went from a 9-9.5 to an 8-8.5 in the final hours. The game crashed a couple times in the latter third, a portion of the story felt too stretched out and I felt the ending could've been better. Things that do not change my opinion on recommending it, but do change my score if I had to score it.

[MIDGETonSTILTS17]

Yes.

[Unknown_Gamer5794]

I think if someone is paid to review a game they should play the game. Imagine if surgeons debated whether they had to finish every surgery, taxi drivers debated whether they needed to take passengers the entire distance, etc. Bruh, your job is to play games for a living. Just do your job and stop complaining.

[EvertonFC]

Imo yes, also the reviewer shouldn't fast travel everywhere in open world games to get the review done @ you kinda funny games with days gone review missing half the content and fun.
It only took Greg 30hours to complete days gone, it took me 98hours (best game last gen imo)

Edit: Greg still said the game should have been shorter and better fleshed out (like wtf Greg) yet he loves avengers rinse and repeat repetitive shite ?

[ChasterMies]

If a lot of people they didn’t finish a game because of how bad or frustrating it was, then I take that as a signal to avoid that game.

[Eonjay]

Thats different. A lot of these reviewers quit for lack of skill. And they are writing a review in most cases for individuals who do have skill to figure out how to beat a game. So the target audience is not served. Why would you go consult someone on something they can't do? Thats not far to the product which in no way by default needs to cater to people who can't play games So instead of saying 'I'm not good at these kind of games so I gonna give it a 6', they cover up their incomptence by blaming the game. 'It didn't ignite my passions like Kirby Pinball so I'm gonna give this game a 6'

You should be able to actually play the game you are reviewing. Period. If it is a technical issue or utter trash that is totally understandable and different.

[EvertonFC]

Angry Joe hated balan world and although the games messed up it was never designed for anyone OVER 11 years old . My point is why was he playing it to review it ?
I like angry Joe and the others but that occasion I was scratching my head why he played it and put it in his worst top 10.
My little 6 year old niece loved it, laughed at the silly music and cinematics but in a fun joyful way.

[EvertonFC]

So if a game reviewer who knows nothing about my taste and vice versa in games says something is bad I take it as gospel, classic example of a sheep bah bah 🐑
Your exactly what's wrong in today's world, you can't think for yourself you kids.

[EvertonFC]

I loved the last guardian and yes the controls were sometimes a little clunky in certain areas but it wasn't as bad as reviewers/others made out.

[Crows90]

Yes.
Does a movie need to be finished before review? Does wine and food need to be eaten? Does any product need to be actually used or completed before a proper review?

Yes! Do gaming journalists want to get away with not doing their job and pretending they're doing a good job...yes.

[Inverno]

No, but you should play through all that it has to offer before having an opinion on it. I don't think that we hafto play through something entirely to understand what the rest of he game will most likely be like. I played through Legends up to the second hub and knew from there that the rest of the game was gonna be much the same til the end. Mind you I'm still playing and am reaching the end, but I think it was enough to form an opinion on it.
Maybe if it instead of numbered reviews we just had more honest opinions written then we can understand why someone didn't watch a movie all the way through or play a game til the end without that effecting it's meta score that so many people put so much emphasis on.

[monkey602]

Simply put, If you can't tell me in your review if the end was worth the journey, Your opinion on it means significantly less.

[neutralgamer1992]

Finish the story

Do some side quests to see the quality difference between main missions and side

If it's a RPG try our different builds and skills

I don't think you have to do every single thing on the map and if the story sucks or isn't important part of the game than you don't have to finish

Issue with reviews simply is this:. When big sites give a game great review scores YouTubers see that as an opportunity to hate on the game to stand out and get clicks. We need honest opinions that's all and way too many people expect AAA to get 10/10 or the game isn't worth it when 15-20 years ago 10/10 use to mean something and very rarely were given out

Games that get 8/10 are looked at as mediocre so we as consumers have a real issue on how we judge the game. We shouldn't put them o much weight on a number or someone's opinion. And more games should do demos for gamers to try the games themselves even if it's 30 minutes only

Let's be honest here we expect horizon and elden ring to get mostly 10/10 and GT7 to be mostly 9/10-10/10 so in reality when a reviewer gives a different number people get mad and lable it as hate. Let's not even start on the whole exclusives argument where one console base will hate on another consoles exclusive that they themselves were never interested in playing to begin with

[z2g]

if the story is part of the review and a big part of the game, then yes. you wouldn't review a movie without finishing it...

[nommers]

Depends on if it’s story based or not. Some endings really tie the room together.

[-Hermit-]

I feel that too much importance has been put on reviews. All I need to know about a game is if it's buggy and if it's well optimised. I don't care about anything else, I will discover that myself through watching gameplay videos or just trying the game out myself. Anything a reviewer says about the game or it's story means nothing to me because I don't value their opinion.

[GoodGuy09]

Yes. Even if rushed, the game needs to be finished.

[AfricanWoolf]

"debate" lol. This is why no one cares what "professional" reviewers think

[Abear21]

With all the previews and gameplay footage shown you should know if you are interested or not. Watch a stream, everyone knows it difficult and deep down you know if that’s your jam.

[Sarcasm]

This reminds me of those people who "reviewed" The Witcher on Netflix, but skipped a bunch of episodes and then made a conclusion. smh

[Silly gameAr]

Should I read an article to completion before I call it trash?

[Hofstaderman]

Yes, you do.

[XxINFERNUSxX]

I think that's part of the job for the reviewer. 😁 Doesn't need to be 100% complete with everything, but the main quest, story etc. should be done.

[Knightofelemia]

A very dumb question to ask. Unless you want to be one of those reviewers who plays the game for 5 minutes gets stuck or dies constantly and calls the game a piece of shit.

[Aussiesummer]

Do you really even need to ask this?

[coolfool]

I don't think they need to finish it before posting some thoughts. However, I do think that they need to make it very clear that the review is just for a part of the game and, if possible, the site should report how much they did get through. Readers can then optionally take or leave the review based on that. There's no harm in giving the readers the choice as long as the site is very transparent about what they have managed to play.

[BrainSyphoned]

But mom my homework will take like all day! Son, if you ever leave my basement and get a real job you won't have to play games for a living anymore.

[IanTH]

For the most part, yes. But I don't think a review should necessarily be ignored because they didn't get all the way to the end. That itself could have value, and may even ultimately be indicative of most consumer experience as well. The reasons would obviously need to be properly communicated so people could properly contextualize the review.

There are games that I got to the point where I knew I was never going to like it, and I had no interest in playing more. I could clearly discuss its pros & cons, and you can get a sense of mechanics quite early on if nothing else.

I mean, we don't require people finish every bite of a dreadful meal before we allow a critique. Experiential things like this, especially ones that can take dozens or hundreds of hours, are not as easy to consume 100% of as a music album or a movie. It shouldn't be the norm, but there should be leeway for context dependent situations.

[FPS_D3TH]

I guess if you’re reviewing the story, sure. However, you should get a pretty good idea how a game actually plays after a couple of hours or so.

[gold_drake]

yes.
atleast finish it. no need to 100% it.

[Monkeycan8]

Depends on the type of game. But for the most part yes.

[GenWorld]

yes.

[kayoss]

Yes, unless the game is unplayable.
Its like saying, "I watched 10mins of a movie and im going assume the rest of the movie is trash/good.". Its not fair to the game, its not fair to the gamers, its not fair to the developers of said game.
May i also add that if the person doing the review, they review a genre/game that they actually play. There are so many reviews that been skewed because the reviewer dont like/never played/not good at a specific genre.

[rekof]

No. But spend significant time with the game.

[Fullmetal_PewPew]

Do I have to unzip my pants before peeing?

[BlaqMagiq1]

Why would anyone ask this idiotic question?

[anast]

They get free stuff, they play video games and get paid for it and now they don't even want to play the games...There is no way game journalism will actually be journalism at this rate. I don't think any one demands %100 completion...the issue is that game journos play about 10 hrs on the easiest difficulty on the expensive version of the game and then rush out a review.

[rob-GP]

I've talked about this in the past and been the target of harassment for calling people out regarding it.

If it's a narrative story-based game, I believe you should play the story through to the end before writing about it. The site I called out had someone play Observation, a story-heavy puzzle game that lasts about 3 hours, and the reviewer only played 45 minutes based on their trophies and then wrote a review incorrectly presuming the gameplay doesn't change (which it does).

I also noticed the same place, and others, reviewing Visual Novels with low scores and incorrect criticism after, again, only playing a few hours of the 50+ hour narrative or clearly skipping the text and unlocking trophies far quicker than you would if experiencing it as intended.

As a reviewer myself, I try to finish every game I review - the only exceptions are games with no story such as racing games or sports titles, for those I play enough to get a grasp on the mechanics and have formed a constructive opinion regarding the gameplay and features. However, games such as JRPGs and Visual Novels I tend to complete and grab the platinum before writing my review - I'm playing one atm which isn't out yet and have already put in just over 130 hours...

I always disclose if I've finished a game or not in my reviews, to give context to my opinion - I find being honest and transparent is better than lying. Another site, which I won't mention, recently reviewed Song of Horror with a pretty poor score and review - failing to mention the game-breaking bugs and issues in chapter 5 simply because the reviewer only played 2 chapters based on their trophies.

Thankfully the issues are now fixed, but they didn't even talk about it whilst making out like they'd played the entire game - which they clearly didn't even get close to doing.

Another reason for the incline of poor and rushed reviews from people who don't even bother completing the game, is the strict Metacritic. With Metacritic, you're expected to have your review score ready for the embargo, even if you've only had the game a day or two, with you potentially being pulled form their service if you don't achieve a number of big releases in time throughout the year.

Also, Metacritic don't let you change your score - ever. So you're made to rush the review to remain on the site, and then can't go back and adjust the score once you've had time to actually play the game fully - meaning sites write their rushed review and then move on without looking back. This is bad as 9/10 times the game consumers play isn't even the same state as the one the reviewer played pre-launch.

I'm not on Metacritic but I am on Opencritic - I just take my time and only publish when the game I'm playing is actually working and has received it's day one patch.

[anast]

I hate to double dip but this inane debate needs a bit more.

As far I know, sports games have career modes.Set the games/matches at a reasonable time (you all can figure this out), finish a season then report. MMO's and "Fortnite", should be collaborative, for obvious reasons and the game hours and technical aspects can be covered in a reasonable amount of time — Throwing out, "should we play for weeks?" Is probably one of the most ignorant things I have heard this week. If you can't figure this out then get a different job. This stuff is extremely rudimentary.

Some possible guidelines to follow:

I) Do not take the job if you do not have the skills to play the game. Take the jobs in which you have the skills to functionally complete your task.

II) Report: how you got the game, the difficulty level in which the game was beat, monetization and the version of the game.

III) Report: all of the technical aspects of the game. This would include actual data, not an opinion.

IV) The rest is fluff for entertainment, which is cool too.

[AKS]

In most cases, yes, definitely that is necessary, especially for story driven games. I can see exceptions such as online multiplayer only games like Team Fortress 2 or Overwatch; in those cases you should have adequate experience with all the characters and available modes to provide a decent overview of the content and quality of the game.

[Germaximus]

lol Yes. And not rushed, which is pretty much every major site review of garbage.

[AmUnRa]

Short answer YES.

[garos82]

there was a time where being a professional "game reviewer" was respected. Nowadays i just laugh in their pathetic attempts to write an objective review on anything.

[GrmpyolGamer]

Lol yes or at least have a disclaimer on the review that the reviewer has not finished the game

[isarai]

AT LEAST the main campaign, and touch on some side stuff. Unless the game is so god aweful you just couldnt, that i can get.