|
Can't you just say I found the single player boring but the multiplayer brilliant, because reasons? I think the key is being a good writer and saying what you enjoy. Other people can then relate, agree or disagree on that basis. With music reviews, I find their are certain people's opinions and reviews I trust more than others. That's not to say they're more objective about it - but their experience is more likely to resonate with my own. I'm not as into videogames as I am music, but the principle holds. Yeah, objectively someone's guitar playing might be better from a technical perspective on album X as opposed to album Y; but the riffs on Y tear my face off way more than they do on X. The former is an objective statement, the latter is subjective. The two can co-exist. Edited by GoatApocalypse at 21:37:28 29-01-2015 |
Can you review a game (or anything else?) that you haven't finished? • Page 2
-
-
Also, I think we need to be clear about what we mean by quality. -
Saul_Iscariot 4,399 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 9 years agoI understand what you are saying Goat. My mate Lee plays a shed load of instruments, very competent at all of them. I listen to music. Years ago we went to see the Manics. After the concert all he could talk about was how bad Nicky Wire was as a bassist as he kept dropping notes. And it really irked him. All I kept going on about was how much I enjoyed the concert. His was closer to an objective perspective than mine but he still came to see them again a few months later. -
And that's an interesting point - how do technical failings impinge upon enjoyment.
Everyone raves about Destiny's shooting mechanics; would people enjoy them more if they were 60fps? Would people enjoy them less if they regularly dropped to 20fps?
Probably yes to both. It's no bother to say "The mechanics are brilliant but rendered unplayable by an unstable framerate." -
GoatApocalypse wrote:
Can't you just say I found the single player boring but the multiplayer brilliant, because reasons?
Yeah you can.
You're arguing why can't everything be opinion based, why can't we just say what it does it for us. In this instance you still need detatchment enough to understand and write why you don't care about an aspect of the game that doesn't directly affect you. -
I'm not. I'm saying some things can only be subject to objective review, while others subject only to subjective review, but crucially that the two can co-exist.
In this instance, there's certainly a degree of professionalism required, but it's in articulating clearly why one doesn't enjoy aspects of a game. That's not objectivism. -
The only objectivity in a games review are the discussion of what the game includes (e.g. game modes, player count) and any technical discussions (fps, performance etc). Whilst things like performance are important, they are generally only mentioned when they fail. No one really cares if a game performs as it is meant to, they only care if it fucks up.
The example of writing about something that doesn't appeal to you (for example the single player section of a game) is still clearly an opinion, it's just that the reviewer is good enough to talk about both what they like and dislike. -
Ultrasoundwave 6,440 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 11 years agoThe reason why I think his review is invalid is because Dying Light is an open-world game based around a narrative, but you can roam around the world and do side quests/random stuff too - the same as Far Cry 4 and GTA V.
If someone only got 60% of the way through Far Cry 4 or GTA V and then "reviewed" it and slapped a 5/10 on it there would be rioting in the streets!. Because Dying Light isn't in that same caliber tho he gets away with it (for some reason). -
1Dgaf 5,211 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 15 years agoYes, as long as you explain how much you've played. -
Derblington 35,161 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 17 years agoUltrasoundwave wrote:
You could easily review FC4 and GTAV a long time before the games are complete. They are the same game from a few hours in.
The reason why I think his review is invalid is because Dying Light is an open-world game based around a narrative, but you can roam around the world and do side quests/random stuff too - the same as Far Cry 4 and GTA V.
If someone only got 60% of the way through Far Cry 4 or GTA V and then "reviewed" it and slapped a 5/10 on it there would be rioting in the streets!. Because Dying Light isn't in that same caliber tho he gets away with it (for some reason).
Obviously you want to put adequate time in to see each of the different missions and get a good feel for the weapons and upgrades but the only thing you'll miss out on are a few specific set-pieces (though you'll have a few already under your belt) and some specific plot points. You know everything important about those games well under half way through.
For something like Mass Effect 3 you need to play the whole thing through. It's the end of a trilogy so narrative is super important to fans of the series - giving an estimation of satisfaction to that point helps meter expectation.
Same with something like the David Cage or Remedy games - they're constructed around a narrative and as such it's one of the most important parts of those games. There's an expectation of those studios from their fans.
Dying Light is not one of those games. There's a narrative but the game doesn't hinge on it. It's about mechanics - parkour, combat and xp - first and foremost. Hell, I'd argue setting / tone, in relation to the zombie aspect, is more relevant than the actual narrative. That's not to say story isn't important, it's just one of the least important things for this type of game. Missions are all fetch quests and narrative is all told through cutscenes and VO. There's nothing interactive about it, no important choices, and you're not even involved in the same way that Half Life 2 managed so many years ago.
It's a wrapper to the actual experience, nothing more.
Edited by Derblington at 23:44:19 29-01-2015 -
Not-a-reviewer 7,686 posts
Seen 1 week ago
Registered 7 years ago -
Not-a-reviewer 7,686 posts
Seen 1 week ago
Registered 7 years agosuper-s1 wrote:
All reviews are subjective and one persons opinion, what a bizarre thing to expect that they're objective in any way other than some obvious technical issues that may exist.
@wuntyphyve That's where the element of objectivity should come in I reckon.
Some websites hide behind cock-ups saying oh it's all subjective, if you don't like the review it's only one man's opinion.
Well, that's not true. If I wanted some random persons opinion I'd look up you tube comments. Professionalism should be being able to assess things properly with some objectivity - whether it's in a genre you don't like, whether it's how crappy or good you feel that day, or anything. -
Rivuzu 18,424 posts
Seen 7 hours ago
Registered 15 years agoBecause we're all about those mechanics, those mechanics, not story. -
Not-a-reviewer 7,686 posts
Seen 1 week ago
Registered 7 years agoMechanics aren't technical issues. -
It depends, I wouldn't expect a reviewer to spend 100+ hours reaching the end point of a lengthy rpg/MMO to be able to review it, no publisher can afford to pay a guy to play a game for two 40 hour+ working weeks plus writing time before being able to tell if its any good or not. It's not exactly running on the same costs as a guy watching a two hour film or spending a couple of evenings reading a book.
If it's an action game you can finish in an evening or three, then yeah, fair enough. And for multiplayer its probably best if they test it at different times of day, different modes, different maps- a broad overview of a game is all a reviewer can achieve of such titles really. -
Ultrasoundwave 6,440 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 11 years agoI don't think it includes all side missions and collectibles- basically Sterling has played the Dying Light story through to about 60%, decided he's had enough and slapped a 5/10 on it.
His review was the FIRST one online, so from what I can tell he's discovered the game is quite long and rushed out a "review" so he gets more views on his new website.
When you consider he's currently using Patreon to fund himself, I'd personally be quite angry if I was paying a monthly contribution to him and he was giving his final say on games he hasn't finished. -
X201 22,150 posts
Seen 8 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoApparently if you review an online game and you haven't played it hard style for ten thousand hours, people will call you a CareBear noob. -
Mola_Ram 26,196 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 9 years agoIf it's a sandbox game, then no, you shouldn't need to "finish" it, because that's usually not what the game is about. The stories in those kinds of games are often the weakest part (see, the RPS review of Dying Light), so it's not like finishing the story will guarantee a better score. -
myiagros 1,501 posts
Seen 6 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoPersonally I think you can review anything at any point, but you have to be clear about what and how much you have experienced. Also ideally you would be clear about the conditions under which you experienced it.
eg. Played for 20 hours over 2 days at a publisher hosted event, 60% of single player campaign on hard, 2 hours of coop and 6 hours of competitive multiplayer, with and against developers, and journalists from other publications.
Edited by myiagros at 11:53:26 30-01-2015 -
I think journalists outlining precisely how much of a game they have played would be counter-productive in the current climate of people demanding absolute objectivity or some other bollocks notion that misses the point completely.
Within reason anyway: Darkfall, despite being gash by many accounts, did need more than 2 hours playtime, to be fair. -
disusedgenius 10,677 posts
Seen 16 hours ago
Registered 14 years agoUltrasoundwave wrote:
Then I'm sure that'll be reflected in his Patreon numbers...
When you consider he's currently using Patreon to fund himself, I'd personally be quite angry if I was paying a monthly contribution to him and he was giving his final say on games he hasn't finished. -
Not completing games before reviewing can go on a games favour, such as me2 and the shitty turdy end game boss fight thing.
I think games should be fully played before reviewing so devs don't get complacent with end game content.........such as me3
Edited by Madder-Max at 12:15:20 30-01-2015 -
Fake_Blood 11,093 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 12 years agoDoes one have to drink an entire ocean to be able to tell it tastes salty? -
No, you dick.
Edited by Madder-Max at 12:20:45 30-01-2015
A combination of lazy devs and lazy reviewers will not do the industry any good at all.
Edited by Madder-Max at 12:22:17 30-01-2015 -
Darren 9,637 posts
Seen 11 hours ago
Registered 17 years agoI would say yes, simply because not every game is compelling enough to want to play it right until the end or play every mode. Just because you do not finish a game does not mean that your opinion of what you have played is not valid. As long as the review is clear how many hours were played and that the game was not completed then any comments made about what was experienced is completely relevant IMO.
I rarely finish games, mainly because I play so many across lots of different platforms but also because I get bored of them long before the end; in fact, if I do play a game from start to finish then it is usually because I absolutely loved it, e.g. Banjo & Kazooie, Kameo, Oblivion (350 hours played), Skyrim (160+ hours played), Diablo III: RoS (on PS4 and XBO, no less!), BioShock 1/2/Infinite, The Witcher 2, The Walking Dead Season 1, Saints Row IV, the Mass Effect trilogy, etc.
Edited by Darren at 12:29:22 30-01-2015 -
Fake_Blood 11,093 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 12 years ago -
Saul_Iscariot 4,399 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 9 years agoDid Sterling say how much of the game he had completed or how much time he had spent playing it in his review? -
This is just avoidance. I don't want to play a game through only to be met by some clichéd generic end game sequence or event which damages the overall experience.
If devs rely on the fact that reviewers are lazy and don't actually review the game (eurogamer) then it's very bad news for games. (Me2 and 3) -
Within in an hour you'll certainly have enough exposure to decide if a game is functional, and does what you'd expect, unless it's extremely cutscene and handholding heavy, or you're totally oblivious.
In the very first gameplay scenario I could see all the problems with the game I'm currently playing, which have continued all the way through the game. The 7/10 I thought it was then, will still be a 7/10 when I finish.
I suppose you need a Mass Effect 3 or Fahrenheit clause though, some games really shit all over themselves and crash into the gutter in spectacular fashion, they're outliers though, the vast majority of games keep to a pretty consistent level of quality throughout.
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
