Check out the latest from the OPM review saga.
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.
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.
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
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
I don't understand. It takes you the whole game to figure out it's a good game? Did you want spoilers or something? you can probably find that within hours of the game's release.
What about 70-80 hour RPGs?
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.
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.
And if the game is hyped it will get a 10/10
@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.
@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.
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.
Let's keep it real, people are mad they gave a multiplat a 10.
i bet most of the reviewers today havent finished Dark Souls yet. but they still gave it a high score.
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.
yesmynameissumo So let me get this straight. After playing a game for half a day, you can't tell me that it has good gameplay, graphics, story, battle system? (only 3 of which really matter to a gamer) Like i understand the movie BS of an example you gave but this is a video game, not a movie. That wasn't even a reply. Ok? It doesn't require an entire play through to realize "wow this game has good graphics. The gameplay is solid!" What do you derp throughout the first couple hours of gameplay and start to pay attention after the credits roll on through? Don't give me that crap. In fact, tell you what. I'll find out the ending for you for the story, just cause that's the only apparent thing you're missing from his review. I'll send you exactly what happens THROUGHOUT the entire game as soon as i beat it and then you can figure out if you'll buy it. Well actually you've probably figured out you'll buy this game anyways so i'll just sit here and realize how dumb it was to even respond to you.
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.
@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.
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.
yesmynameissumo Look, your assumptions on what it should be are completely biased. Not practical. There is nothing about most of those games you mentioned that kept me skeptical enough to keep me from formulating whether or not it is a good game after playing them a couple of hours in. Those "rough beginnings" didn't keep me away, they kept me playing it because after 3 or 4 hours i thought they were fantastic. People who can formulate an articulate opinion piece of a video game with that amount of time, not a movie, deserves to be a gaming journalist. Btw, there are famous movie critics who walk out on bad movies and do a review on bad movies, who are right about being the movie being horrible, that earn more money than you can ever hope to make in your life time. So don't bring that up. You're absolutely right, you're not a gaming journalist. You don't need to play an entire game to realize there is great gameplay, music, graphics, etc. IF it's taking you that long then it's a pretty bad game. If you are yearning to play more and even finish the game, safe bet it's a great game. You better do some research before you tell what someone should do in a profession that is not yours next time. Or you can choose to ignore his article and find a guy who says he finished it and read his review.
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.
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.
Looks like this guy wanted to give it an "11" when he did finally finish it :-)
@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 .
Oh men the stupidity of the this.. Score with a 10 a game you didn't even finish..
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.
"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..
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.