Top
30°

How Long Should a Reviewer Play a Game?

Reviews are always a touchy subject, especially in the video game industry. Many people view game reviews as biased because of certain allegiances review sites have with developers and certain kick backs they take. Even more important for me is the fact that when I read some of the reviews out in the world, you can clearly tell that the reviewer only played part of the game.

Read Full Story >>
dualshockers.com
The story is too old to be commented.
taz80804012d ago

Nothing angers me more than a review that is half @ssed. I see some sites out there where they just throw out cliches and buzzwords. I want substance in a review, not a novel but at least something that will help sway my decision.

Press_Agree4012d ago

In the case of gametrailers they can play for 100 days and still fake their comparisons

Chris3994012d ago (Edited 4012d ago )

It's their job. Oh, and these "single player" or 1/2 game reviews are irritating. Review the entire package, not it's separate parts. If mutli-player isn't available before the game's launch, hold off on publication until that aspect has been played and examined.

And ditch numerical scores. 99% of the people reading a review skip right to the end (and occassionally check out bullet points or random bits) and completely miss the essence of what the reviewer was trying to say.

taz80804012d ago

Unfortunately everyone is always racing ot be the first to write something on the newest game so they may rush thru titles just to be the first.

jakethesnake4012d ago

I'm okay with them reviewing only the single player portion of the game, as long as they explicitly state that that is exactly what they are doing. People have their biases, and sometimes they care about multiplayer, sometimes they care about single player. I am fine with you embarrassing your bias as long as you will be up front and honest about it. Unfortunately so few people do that.

As for reviews of half the game - that is unacceptable. I realize that you want to be the first, but didn't the major TV networks learn in 2000 and 2004 US elections that being accurate and complete is WAY more important than being first. Being first can get you some ratings, but they may end up making you look like a half-wit who doesn't know what is going on.

EvilTwin4012d ago (Edited 4012d ago )

Agreed. Play the whole thing. Getting paid to play a video game is a pretty nice job. If you get a week to play Zelda or GTA, be happy, get a lot of coffee, and enjoy a few long nights. If the worst thing that happens is that you get stuck in the water temple for a night, there are far worse jobs to have.

The Conduit is the most recent example of "WTF?" reviewing. Too many reviewers obviously didn't finish the single player, and a few either didn't play it online or did so for a very limited amount of time. It's an average game, got some average scores, but ended up with a whole lot of stupid reviews.

Automat4012d ago

those guys reviewing flOw a couple of weeks ago sure took their time...

iiprotocolii4012d ago

That's what people usually go with when they review. If it doesn't appeal to them from the getgo, they won't care. To me, personally, even if a game has crappy graphics I still play it. Simply because it can have other elements that make it good; a story, gameplay, combat, etc. Or vise versa. Reviewers nowadays take things and just play them for one hour, and base their judgement on that.