Should game reviewers be expected to play an entire game prior to writing a review?

Rikki Grimes from writes: Recently I was browsing through reviews of Batman: Arkham Asylum when I came across a reviewer who admitted in the comments that he had not yet completed the game. This got me thinking: "Should game reviewers be expected to play an entire game prior to writing a review?"

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Chubear4039d ago

The entire game on at least NORMAL settings.

UnSelf4039d ago

uh nooooooooooooooooooooooooo smh /end sarc

deadreckoning6664039d ago (Edited 4039d ago )

NOPE. But if its one of those long ass RPG's, the reviewer should get at least half the game finished.

If going by the traditional graphics,gameplay, sound, story, and replay value then the game doesn't need to be completed in its entirety since there won't be any DRASTIC changes in these areas in the last hour or two of the game. MMO's are a good reason too.

gaffyh4039d ago

If it's a normal game, YES, if it's an RPG then no because it would literally take forever to finish the game.

RememberThe3574039d ago

For normal Single player-games games, yes. But for MMO's or this of that nature that would take months to complete or can't even be completed, no.

Once you start getting into the online components and the endless replay value developers have been able to come up with, you have to take it on a case by case basis. I also want my reviews in a timely manner.

Mikerra174039d ago

I think if reviewers played the online for GOW2 we would have way diff review average

Baka-akaB4039d ago

There is no it depends .

They have early access to the final games , unless the editor pulls shenanigans (like how come gh5 wasnt reviewed before release day ?) and hell they get access through the whole year or years to a game with multiple previews .

Yet it's obvious most of those guys simply never do their job . even long jrpg of snes/ps1 era usually takes 40-50 hours rushing through it , and they have gotten consistantly shorter each gen .
Hell even without finishing it , they should have a good grasp and amount of infos after quite some hours into it .

Yet it's obvious given the massive amount of false infos and innacuracies , even about plot points , encountered in jrpg reviews from populat outlets , that they simply dont bother cloking more than a few hours , if even more than one .
Hell some series even seems to have the same generic review template they just basically copy paste with the same flaws and observations (like the "Tales of" or wild arms series) .

MMOs ? Well there is a reason that serious outlet used to not review mo until at least a month after launch or some really polished beta . Especially when launch time is usually painful .

Hell take Age of Conan .. if 90% of the press had done their job , and played beyond the beginners zone , they would have realized that back then , only said zone was polished and mostly bug free ... with all the other zones crashing , devoid of content , or simply not even that good .

The press kept creating some huge hype around a buggy title people couldnt stop complain about for months or were quitting in droves . Of course they fixed many problem since , but still it was as usual some hack journalist job on eveyrone's part .

guitarded774039d ago

Bubbles for Baka-akaB, well thought out argument.

GameGambits4039d ago


ESPECIALLY on long ass RPGS like someone just put it. A game like Star Ocean The Last Hope starts off at like a solid 8.5 and then slowly but surely as you play drops down to a 7.5 due to a poor story, weak characters, and horrible voice acting. It isn't as apparent that was the case at the start, but once that game is complete it is junk.

Honestly if your job is to review a product why should I trust you for knowing a fraction of it? That's like me trusting a review on a movie that the guy stayed for 1/3 of and deemed it crap, because he didn't get it... Or someone saying a car is 5/5 stars quality when he just drove it down the block once.

I mean if you are a gamer and your job is to write about games you should be able to romp through a game in like 2-3 days even if it's 50+hours.

neonlight454039d ago

Yes, but and RPG's like fallout 3 they should focus on the main mission and do a few of the side missions.

badz1494039d ago (Edited 4039d ago )

why the hell ask? if not, don't call them "reviews", just call them "impressions" and don't give any mark for them! just rate it by the color of the rainbow for instance! - red for AWESOME, violet for LAME!

ThanatosDMC4039d ago

That's what they should do.

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 4039d ago
Braynbasher4039d ago

I believe they should but others don't. Can a full review be fully formed with only half the game completed.

Raoh4039d ago

If they get the game early enough, yes.

but there should be no reviews based on demo play or one or two levels of play.

Chubear4039d ago

Most games out are reviewed with minimal play through of the game on the easiest difficulty setting. There's no way you can give proper info about the game like that.

If only gamers knew just how many games have been reviewed like this they wouldn't put so much trust in these their almighty editorial reviewers. Of course they use the same lame assed excuse "but we have too many games to review" well then do one of two things:

1) Let the reader or viewer know the parameters in which you reviewed a game (Never going to happen cause you & they know why) or

2) Don't bother giving a review of the game.

pangitkqb4038d ago (Edited 4038d ago )

I think you make some great points, but I think bad reviews happen a little less often than you imply. I write for a small site (That Gaming Site), but our site is big enough that we regularly get review copies of games straight from publishers. I can honestly say that at our site, finishing games before review is mandatory and grounds for termination if not complied with. Our credibility depends on it. If we aren't honest we will stop getting viewers and game makers will stop sending us their products for review.

In the end, there are some dishonest reviewers, but it often doesn't take long for them to get called out. Gamers are a sharp group - despite ridiculous fanboyism - and quickly notice anything amiss in regards to their favorite past time.

Also, I agree with your previous post that states a game should be completed on at least normal settings. That is the criteria we use.

Game on, my friend.

Tee7soo4039d ago

game reviewers suck , thats why i always read real players reviews

Missan4039d ago

Yes, if not then why the hell are they reviewing something they haven't fully played?

Show all comments (67)
The story is too old to be commented.