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

Rikki Grimes from Theknightsofgaming.com 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?"

[rawrockkillz]

Yes

[Chubear]

The entire game on at least NORMAL settings.

[darthv72]

it doesnt hurt.

[UnSelf]

uh nooooooooooooooooooooooooo smh /end sarc

[deadreckoning666]

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.

[gaffyh]

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

[RememberThe357]

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.

[Mikerra17]

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

[Baka-akaB]

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 .

[guitarded77]

Bubbles for Baka-akaB, well thought out argument.

[GameGambits]

Yes
Yes
YES!

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.

[neonlight45]

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

[badz149]

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!

[ThanatosDMC]

That's what they should do.

[Braynbasher]

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

[Raoh]

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.

[Chubear]

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.

[pangitkqb]

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.

[Tee7soo]

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

[Missan]

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

[topdawg122]

yes, it's their job

[Missan]

Of course yes, if not what's the point

[Jamescagney]

Yes they should, or else how can you give a subjective review? You don't go to the cinema and watch half a film and review it.

[kaz-hirai]

Must be the reason why this game got such a high score:

http://www.metacritic.com/g...

;-D !!!!

[UnSelf]

Should you be allowed to keep working after asking such a dumbass question?

[Double Toasted]

but I get burnt anytime I use the advice of the review or hype from people concerning a game. I'll just say this...Fat Princess.

[JonnyBigBoss]

Yes...

do reviewers not finish before reviewing? I always thought that was the reviewers code.

[Redempteur]

you just woke up then ..

How does this feel now ? Being awake

You are now awake that reviewers doesn't not complete most of their games ..

MANUALLY

[Peter North]

Not Xbox games.

[Missan]

Most of them are trash so I don't blame the reviewers.

[GiantEnemyCrab]

I would expect the same standards across all platforms, no matter which side of the debate you are on with this article.

What exactly are you suggesting? Personally, I would rather a reviewer give me impressions that reflect the entire game. I do understand that time constraints can't always allow for it.

[gemc666]

is funny because in games like for example, killzone 2 or cod 4, the reviews were hitting the net without even testing the multiplayer part of the games, they gave the scores mostly based on the "previews" multiplayers tests

(review codes don't have multiplayer, most don't)

[Master-Baiter]

they need to know the ins and outs of a game to be able to "review" it

[Unicron]

Yes. Without a doubt. Period.

ESPECIALLY when it comes to multipayer. I expect online games to be tested IN THE REAL WORLD, not on a team's private dev servers. I'm amazed at the amount of reviews that glossed over Gears 2's online issues, but lambasted SOCOM for them.

[Ares84PS3]

That is not even a question of "should" a reviewer MUST complete the game in order to be able to form a opinion about it.

[TheForgotten0ne]

I don't get it, why even ask this question? It's like asking a book reviwer if he should read the entire book, or if the movie reviewer asked if it was okey he left half way into the movie...

It's the "job" your doing, and if you want to give a good review you need to have played the game, it's as simple as that

[jay2]

100% YES! next stupid question.

[Kushan]

Define "the entire game". I mean, most games you can run through very quickly, but miss out on most of the best bits because you're rushing. I mean, think of a game like GTAIV - what if you skipped all the side quests, all the exploring, all the collectables and just did the main quests - would that be any fairer an indication of the whole game than someone who didn't do the full main story, but a bit of everything else?
You could say that a full, 100% completion should be done, but how long would that take? There are plenty of games out there that need reviewing and its just as unfair that one game got 100 hours of playing while another only got 2 or 3.

[Baka-akaB]

hum no the main quest should be good enough to get a good feel about the game .

Side stuff are as defined , extra , and wont change the entire experience . No need for 100 completion . Just at least a complete run that you could expect from most people .

But with the exception of some big names and sure sellers , they often dont even bother to do that .

It's horribly apparent with jrpg reviews , where outside of huge name like SE's FF , they wont have a solid base for reviewing a title . Especially when they give the "chore" to some bloke who happens to hate "animu" .

you then ends up with what was pretty much ten years of reviews of namco's "tales of" games in some notorious magazines and sites .. with the same template "generic anime looking with generic story" , chokeful of plots points error , and obviously missing any kind of gameplay or story changes when you spend at most 1-4hours in each game's first area .

[Kushan]

Oh I agree with you, I'm pretty much saying the same thing - you should play a game for as long as it takes to get a good feel of it. It doesn't necessarily mean completing it 100%, but play as much of it as you can. Do some side quests, do some extra bits and focus on getting at least most of, if not all, of the main story/quest.
Some games are built on side quests, though. I believe Crackdown is a good example of this, where the main story is nothing special, but the co-op play and orb hunting are where the fun is really at.

[Miacosa]

That is their job.

[Sigh]

game reviewers don't really play the entire game after all... hmmmm

[ballsofsteel]

no matter what game the should get through the main storyline atleast

[JohnnyUtah]

The reality is it can't be done. Reviewers do not get paid a lot of money. so if a game takes 20 hours to complete and then another 4 to write that is 24 hours to play. On a normal wage that is like $500 easy which is out of the reality basket for most magazine publishers. The only way you can do it is if you can afford a massive team of writers, or happen to have no pressure about deadlines or money

[Jamescagney]

Yeah, I mean it's such a demanding job, getting paid to play a game. My heart bleeds.

[Baka-akaB]

of course it can be done . And it's actually the bigger outlets with lots of people that are often lazy .

Breaking down by genre , only a handful are long games , especially this generation .
The god of war , devil may cry and clones type are short and easy to review .
So are fps with the exception of mutliplayer to try out .

hell the only thing eating up that much time are mmos and rpgs .
If it's a jrpg you can safely rush through a story of around 30 hours and get some definitive opinion about it past it's middle . Hell same goes with wrpg .

How many 20 hours game did you even get to play on 360/ps3 ? Noit that many and i bet you 80% of them were rpgs .

[Cajun Chicken]

Yes.

[SuperSaiyaJinX]

I say yeah or at least more than half cause that's what it takes to be a reviewer, it's not like movie critics complain not to do a review because a movies bad they knew what they got there selves into before they went to do a review. I know it's a little different than just sitting down and watching a movie then giving it a rating. Heck most people rate games off demos nowadays now that's just lazy.

[kornbeaner]

Yes.

EX: The time travelers wife is the worst movie ever. I haven't seen it but from the previews I can tell its a stinker.

Same with games. A game can start of really good then just go to crap. If these reviewers are not going to play to whole way through why not just "review" the game once a demo is released.

[sarshelyam]

That's like a food critic writing an entire editorial on a restaurant, its service, and food based purely on looking at the facade of the building the restaurant resided within. There is no basis for a valuable opinion when only a fraction of the experience is taken into consideration.

[RandomDude655]

This generation is proving how pathetic games journalism has become. Seems like this all started with Dan "shoe" comparing a finished game's AI to Killzone 2's unfinished preview build, but he got some major egg in the face when the AI is nearly the best for this generation. I think this just shows that these "journalists" are open to the highest bidder.

[Baka-akaB]

It's hardly a generation thing imo . Wich is why i never had any good opinion about reviews to begin with .
It "only" spreaded over most genre instead of a select few , and became more apparent .

But i've always known most outlets not doing a proper job on obscure or unpopular games

[RandomDude655]

You may be right. This generation may just seem worse due to the consolidation into a few major outlets. Things like this and things like the Kane and Lynch fiasco flat out make me angry due to the fact that great games get overlooked due to not having "AAA" status, and it may end up stifling the creativity of devs.

[SuperSaiyaJinX]

cchum - stole the words right out my mouth have a bubble.

[name]

Future Reviewer comment: The story felt unfinished and unclear to me, no I didn't finish the game.

[Socomer 1979]

Guys who get paid to help sell a game to please advertisers?
Guys who pretend to be honest & feel like they control fans with a wisp of thier typing fingers?
Guys who critisize all day like old Jewish women?

I don't care if a reviewer just looks at the box & writes a review.
No trophies or achievents, no psn:id or gamertag then your crap is useless.

I'm not easily fooled & I have a iron will. Nobody will ever tell me what to do or not do.
I'm a leader with my very own first class experience. Some fat guy in washed out jeans, stained t-shirt with yellow teeth & hungover is supposed to relate to my incredibleness.

Way to think long term in this review business.
I have friends, family & my favorites to help guide my purchases.
All I need videogame sites for are previews, developer interviews & gameplay footage.
no need for the fat guy to rate yay or nay.

No trophies means fck off!

[Baka-akaB]

i dont think i often do , but i agree completely .

[djfullshred]

They should spend some time with it, and make an attempt to play the whole thing at least...if they run out of time, thern so be it, and write your review to make a deadline. But at least make the attempt. I can understand you can't play through the whole game of Fallout 3 just for a review, but at least spend enough time with it to warn us of potential pitfalls.

I can think of some games that I bought after good reviews, and then found out for myself the game was seriously flawed...but you had to play it for a little while to find out it had problems. Obviously the reviewers I read had not put in enough time to find out for themselves.

[NateDPG]

LOL what? I thought that's self-evident tsk tsk

[bjornbear]

It's a job, not a game ;)

[Digitaldude]

How are you gonna properly do it then?

[CharlesDCI]

No

Most aspects of a game you should be able to realize them 30% into the game. You telling me you need to complete the game to find out it has good graphics, gameplay, and features? If you also adding a lot of the story into the review, you have to realize that a lot of gamers don't want any spoilers, so reviewers should actually keep story points to themselves.

I review games for my site and I try to spend as much time with it as possible so I can get the review before people lose interest and end up not caring about the review.

[timestoby]

WTF,i thought they did. how else can you review a game if you havnt played all of it. like 2-3 levels dont cut it lol

[Socomer 1979]

How can you ever possibly be able to determine replay value?
So you think you can just play the game in your own head after reading the instructions & tweaking options?
That is a review no one should read or take serious. Really, you relate to no one except your sponsor & that is
Full of sh1T.

You can't guess addictiveness.
Next gen games usually require a patch in 2 weeks of purchase.
Lasting impressions from someone like you is like listening to stories from a senile old man.
It's chopped up, no substance, meaningless & forgetful opinions.

You think you'll get paid faking your way in the industry?
I knew some laziness was going on in the business but you seem to think it's the norm to be completly out of touch.
No trophies no read. Just do us the favor & stamp a number under all that garbage & hope metacritic adds you if they need some nonsence. You lost all my cool points with that statement dude.

[djfullshred]

Socomer 1979 - you don't sound like someone knowledgable enough about being cool to talk about "cool points". Your diatribe was not very cool.

[Socomer 1979]

Time constraints?!
Who said 1 guy has to review every game released?
Get a team!

Guys who excell in thier favorite fckn genre & play the sh1t outta it!
Didn't beat the game? Don't have any trophies then guess what you're not printing a review in time & you lost some money. Simple you goddam corner cutting cheat.

Reviewers are supposed to be hands on. Guys we relate to. Not spectators or back seat drivers.
Thankfully, reviewers get paid dog crap. They make no money in a job that buries thier whole life in a no future enviorment. These guys aren't even real men. Man boys thier moms are ashamed of.
Why do you think they're are so cynical? It's not sarcasm but more like alone & sad with coffee money.

[CharlesDCI]

@Socomer 1979

The funny thing about your reply is that most of the things you brought up, reviewers don't even add in their reviews in the first place.

And a big thing you have to realize you moron is that I'm not getting paid for this, so I can't spend all day playing a game. I actually have a day job. The big sites can spend all the time they want reviewing a game, but I can't. Even if I could, I still wouldn't beat the game first because like i said before. MOST ASPECTS OF A GAME YOU DON'T HAVE TO BEAT THE GAME TO SEE! Is the game going to look or control better half way through? Did the developers all of a sudden put more game options 75% into the game?? All the games I reviewed kept my impressions of it until I finally did beat it. The only aspect that didn't is the story. like I said before the story should not be included into a review unless you are summarizing it to give readers something to go off of.

I also could care less about whatever cool points I could of had with you.