Play-mag: "Gran Turismo 5 has people questioning (myself included) how much a reviewer needs to play it before they can, should or could have any kind of final opinion. I’ve played it for 42 hours now. Is this enough?"
anyone expecting reviewer to spend all their time with the one game is down right ignorant
Well firstly, in most games reviewers get cheats so they can see the whole game without playing it through. Clearly that hasn't happened with GT5 so it's down to the reviewer's skill with the game what they get to see - not much it turns out since most of them seem utterly unable to complete even the most basic races. However, it's also clear that most reviewers started the game, went into Arcade, chose a car and track, started races, drove car into wall, went into photo mode, couldn't find damage and had their score in mind at that point. That is clearly not reviewing - it's just initial impressions with a score. As I said last week before launch, there would be no credible reviews of GT5 before this week because the game is simply too big to be reviewed in a day. The depth and content is great for fans of GT and car enthusiasts everywhere. The reviews are great for trolls. I'll take it that way round anyday over games which are light on content but review well. r.
"However, it's also clear that most reviewers started the game, went into Arcade, chose a car and track, started races, drove car into wall, went into photo mode, couldn't find damage and had their score in mind at that point" That’s the truth right there
Don't care how long the game is...professional reviewers should be finishing a game before posting a review BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE PAID TO DO. This is the equivalent of a movie reviewer watching only the first half of an epic movie and assuming they are giving a fair review.
They get PAID to review games. Movie reviewers watch the entire film, I don`t see why gaming should be any different.
I don't get why in this day and age, one person reviews an entire game. It should be multiple people, to come together and make a decision without bias. Kind of like the supreme court. @below your right. more sites should do this. instead of giving it to one person.
That is how Famitsu reviews games. They have 4 reviewers who each use a 10 scale, and the final score is X/40.
Because some games (GT5 included) would take hundreds of hours to 100% complete. Some games are too hard for the average reviewer to 100% complete. But after even 10% they know whether or not they're having a good time. Most gamers who buy the game will not complete it, so why should we hold reviewers to the same standard when the people reading the review won't get to the parts they're reading about?
Reviewers job is to play any game and describe it too us, tell us its pros and cons so that we can make educated purchases. How can reviewers accurately describe us any game if they dont finish it? Its their job for fucks sake!!
It's their job, you moron. Not to mention; GT5 is probably one of the biggest games to release over the past couple of years. They should be aware that the game is more than just 1-2hours long(which judging by most reviews is about how long they played on average. If they're going to "REVIEW" then they should do it properly/thorough and not do a botched job.
dam u just got dissed by 20 disagrees and i dont even own a Ps3 lmao
I expect a reviewer to know the game he is reviewing .if it's an action game i want the main adventure complete , same if it's an adventure game ..you cannot taalk about a game if you don't know the end . Same with RPGs ..finish them ..i'm not asking EVERY quest or mission but at least the main story . As it was obvious that GT5 had levels , it should had been obvious to not spur reviews if you have not reach a relative point. I think i'm not asking for the impossible.
LMFAO @ the edit "pebble has too many pixels!" LOLOL! I need this game!
42 hours is reasonable. In a game with an ending, a true ending... you need to see it. GT5 HAS AN ENDING. I.e. an ending title sequence. So if the reviewer hasn't reached that, they haven't completed A-Spec mode, therefore they can't have a valid opinion of the game. Not to mention, with a game like Black Ops the reviewers will spend at least 10-20hours with the online component. IGN spent ... 1 MINUTE with GT5's.
i bought it as i know the quality of work from pd,but there is lessons to learn from reveiwers here at the likes of ign.these are big sites giving out what amounts to wrong information,why not just asked pd for a cheat or two to see what the leveling system does with out spending hours and hours on the game.i mean these are suppose to know whats going on behind the scenes,they have a contact number for sony at least don,t they?
I always thought a reviewer was suppose to play a game from start to finish, not necessarily getting a 100% complete in it but at least finishing the story/campaign and if it has multiplayer at least try it out for a bit. I mean is a review really complete if they only played 40% of a game? I guess even people getting paid to play games half ass their jobs too.
I really do think if ign want to keep any of the little amount of credibility and respect they used to have they will republish there review and publish an apology as looking very unlikely they will ever get an exclusive announcement every again. I can also confirm after speaking to some people that all reviewers received there copies 1.5weeks-2weeks before the game came out so they really had no reason to only play a little amount of hours of the game.
imo you need to be at least a level 10 in aspec, by this point you will be on the pro events and damage starts showing up on your car.
The worst point in all these failed reviews things (this is not the first time that a game has a bad review) is the lack of apologies. No one will be humble enough to publically apologize for having done their work bad and having released an half assed review. The world knows the denial, but still the stubborness reigns.
It's hard enough sometimes to get others to apologize for their mistakes or even see that they made a mistake. I've learned to respect those who can admit fault and do something about it. Those who can't, are just as bad as constant liars.
They would have to admit to lots of things more than just not spending the time to judge the game properly. They would have to admit to just being bad at videogames. Reviewers get games for free, endlessly, at least at ign. So eventually they just don't care about anything besides presentation and story because its their JOB and they just want to get through the damn thing. That's the only thing that keeps people playing when they slide the difficulty down to very-easy or the difficulty just doesn't exist in the first place. Castlevania comes to mind. They criticized it for being punishing on platforming, but in reality it just takes SOME trial and error. Modern big-shot reviewers think that you should be able to play through without practice or forthought. Gameplay that caters the impatient, jaded reviewer through this process, without giving them the realization that they actually suck at videogames, moves to the top of the list. In summary: IGN and others would rather have the ILLUSION of playing a game (which is already an illusion...) than actually have a game that required skill to play. The one and only exception to this rule is FPS. For some reason, people forget how difficult it was to get acclimated with move/strafe on one stick and look on the other after coming from the goldeneye generation of controls.
Doesn't really make alot of sense to have damage unlocked as you drive? That isn't SIMULATION at all. Yeah yeah, you'll say repairs cost but then maybe they should have had a better repair structure if it means you can only use it past level 40. This isn't supposed to be an RPG.
"This isn't supposed to be an RPG. " There are numerous RPG elements about this game that are addicting outside of the actual racing mechanics. But its not just RPG "elements". You are role-playing a real driver, money, training, licenses and all. The only difference is that instead of using made up stats and gear, everything is taken from reality. if that's not an RPG I don't know what is.
Whats the point of reviewing games if your not going to play the whole game? Its like your saying your going to review MGS4 for the first 3 hours and basing your review on that 3 hours without finishing the game. So how the hell are u going review GT5 if u havent even reached level 10? U basically just reviewed 15 to 20% of the game. If your going to treat one of the BIGGEST GAMES like this then u shouldnt be even reviewing games period.
Who said they hadn't reached level 10? You've just made that up in your own mind.
this is a type of game that reviewers have to spend some time with to unlock all the features. It is the game design if they dont like they can state that. But what they cant do is say that the game is missing said feature if that feature is available later on in the game
Honestly I think most of this is subjective. Personally for me I could tell GT5 was a 9.5 game from jump. The only gripe I really have is people giving it a 7/10. That to me tells me you didn't really do your research much to make an informed decision. For this instance and all games really, you have to take the scope of the game, relative to the review and when the review was published. Clearly GT5 is an RPGesk/Simulation racing game. That's the addictive part. It sneaks up on you and you really don't notice it at first, but yes its a Car driving RPG, or with RPG elements...that make up a significant bulk of the game. We all know the car driving element is very solid. Now take that and add on the other stuff, hell you can even watch videos and GT TV, something i didn't even know was there until I pressed back after the home screen. Arcade mode didn't know that was there as I thought A spec was arcade...so I was content with that, but it just keeps adding stuff on to it. I give other racing games their props...but GT5 is a girl that you are just talking to and all of a sudden one day you wake up and you realize your in love...and love is a powerful thing.
"The only gripe I really have is people giving it a 7/10." why are you allowed to pick and choose what scores gt5 gets? it seems now that ign fuked up with their review any review that isn't a 9+/10 is labeled in incomplete review.
I agree with Wretch: Well… if you consider it “finished” yes… BUT if you come to wrong conclusions, like many did with the damage, then NO. Would you dismiss FFXIII after 20 hrs and say “Oh well, I played enough, it won’t be different for the next 20 hrs”? NOBODY is saying you must complete it 100%, but you should finish much of it. Seeing as many reviews that came out on release day, where the reviewers wrote incorrect and false assumptions into their reviews, it’s just not good journalism, if journalism at all.
Being pedantic, but it's not journalism at all - it's criticism.
I don't think that necessarily reviewers should have to 100% a game to be able to write an objective review. However they should have experienced most of what is on offer and to be able to judge a game as an entire package. Most of these GT5 reviews are like somebody writing a review after playing a 100+ hour RPG after playing for 10. I'm not expecting somebody to drive all 1000 cars and their real life counterparts in order to evaluate their authenticity, however it should be expected that somebody should have enough time with a big game like this in order to reach and objective opinion on the experience.
See, that's a more reasonable view. People demanding 100% completion of a game that takes HUNDREDS of hours to finish obviously have no idea how this job - and it IS a job, not hours and hours of dicking about each week - works.
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.