|
If a game is not entertaining enourgh for you to enjoy it after just a few hours then it doesnt deserve to be called an entertaining game. So no i dont think they need to complete a game before review. However saying that it varies massivly between games as to what is needed before review. You cannot judge an RPG based on its tutorial but you can probably judge a single player FPS after only a couple of hours. |
Can you review a game (or anything else?) that you haven't finished? • Page 3
-
-
Depends entirely on the game. You can pretty much see all that a lot of games today have to offer in the first few hours. Do you need to reach those final credits to have an informed opinion? No, I don't think so. -
RyanDS 14,074 posts
Seen 13 hours ago
Registered 13 years agoMass Effect 3: 10/10
Mas Effect 3: Having seen the ending 7/10
Fallout 3: 10/10
Fallout 3: after "why the fuck do I commit suicide when I have someone immune to radiation standing next to me? "9/10"
But those are rare examples. Generally any game based around gameplay (sports, platformers, FPS and so on) I would say you can review fairly early. Any story based game really needs to be seen through to the end to judge though. (RPGs, JRPGs, Point and Click adventures etc.)
Edit: Or a 3rd example:
Brothers Tale of 2 sons: (I think that was the name) 7/10
Brothers having seen the ending: 10/10
Edited by RyanDS at 12:49:20 30-01-2015 -
Not @ ryan
Absolutely wrong. Me 2 and 3 were great games until the last bit.
What this boils down to is that negative reviews affect sales and crap end game content is a cost saving for the dev.
You cannot see all that a game has to offer in just a few hours (sky rim)
If games are an art form then they need to be reviewed fully.
Edited by Madder-Max at 12:49:19 30-01-2015
Edited by Madder-Max at 12:50:05 30-01-2015
Edited by Madder-Max at 12:50:46 30-01-2015 -
Ultrasoundwave 6,440 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 11 years agodisusedgenius wrote:
Just checked the Patreon site :
Ultrasoundwave 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.
Jim Sterling is getting $10,000 A MONTH off Patreon to review 60% of games.
There's a fucking headline for you EG! -
Mola_Ram 26,196 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 9 years agoMadder-Max, why do you edit your posts so much? -
Cappy 14,394 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoThe more pertinent question is; Why doesn't he edit out the edits? -
Big-Swiss 9,456 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 18 years agoarent games like sex?
sex for instance, you can explore that subject with a woman for years, there is so much to experience, so many positions, places, times, etc and still, after the first 2 minutes of sex with someone you are already able to judge how the next 50 years of sex will be like
goes beserk like maniac, 9/10 or doesen move and doesen't make a single sound 2/10
Edited by Big-Swiss at 13:15:19 30-01-2015 -
nickthegun 87,711 posts
Seen 8 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoUltrasoundwave wrote:
No he isn't. He's getting 10k a month to be a personality, producing lets plays, talking heads and reviews.
Jim Sterling is getting $10,000 A MONTH off Patreon to review 60% of games.
His funders by this stage know what he is like and probably were not surprised that he reviewed a game he couldn't be arsed to finish. Zero fucks were given by anyone other than people with no stake in it.
And, fwiw, of course you can review a game you haven't played to competition.
Edited by nickthegun at 13:23:28 30-01-2015 -
Rivuzu 18,424 posts
Seen 7 hours ago
Registered 15 years agoHold up. Isn't Jim Sterling that fat ugly fucker whose video thumbnails always looked like Nazi propaganda posters? -
nickthegun 87,711 posts
Seen 8 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoThat's the joke, yeah. -
MiniAmin 3,799 posts
Seen 5 months ago
Registered 13 years agoBig-Swiss wrote:
Woah! I didn't realise there was anything after the first 2 minutes!
arent games like sex?
sex for instance, you can explore that subject with a woman for years, there is so much to experience, so many positions, places, times, etc and still, after the first 2 minutes of sex with someone you are already able to judge how the next 50 years of sex will be like
goes beserk like maniac, 9/10 or doesen move and doesen't make a single sound 2/10 -
Ultrasoundwave 6,440 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 11 years agonickthegun wrote:
Ultrasoundwave wrote:
No he isn't. He's getting 10k a month to be a personality, producing lets plays, talking heads and reviews.
Jim Sterling is getting $10,000 A MONTH off Patreon to review 60% of games.
His funders by this stage know what he is like and probably were not surprised that he reviewed a game he couldn't be arsed to finish. Zero fucks were given by anyone other than people with no stake in it.
And, fwiw, of course you can review a game you haven't played to competition.
Fuck that - $10,000 (or £7000) a month and he can't even finish games he's reviewing?. This is the same guy who moans constantly about devs not finishing games before releasing them, yet he publishes his reviews before finishing games. -
Any ideas how long a straight run at the campaign would take a competent player? -
nickthegun 87,711 posts
Seen 8 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoUltrasoundwave wrote:
Saying the same thing again doesn't make it right.
nickthegun wrote:
Ultrasoundwave wrote:
No he isn't. He's getting 10k a month to be a personality, producing lets plays, talking heads and reviews.
Jim Sterling is getting $10,000 A MONTH off Patreon to review 60% of games.
His funders by this stage know what he is like and probably were not surprised that he reviewed a game he couldn't be arsed to finish. Zero fucks were given by anyone other than people with no stake in it.
And, fwiw, of course you can review a game you haven't played to competition.
Fuck that - $10,000 (or £7000) a month and he can't even finish games he's reviewing?. This is the same guy who moans constantly about devs not finishing games before releasing them, yet he publishes his reviews before finishing games.
If he didn't feel it was necessary to finish a game, the people who know him enough to support him are likely to trust him.
Likewise, if I were to tell my friends 'I didn't finish it because it was shit' they would trust my judgement.
I know you are very hung up on the 10k figure but the people who provide that will, by and large, not give a fuck and trust his judgment call. That why you are 'getting shit' from wherever you posted your original post to.
Edited by nickthegun at 14:05:24 30-01-2015 -
nickthegun 87,711 posts
Seen 8 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoAlso, in the days of people shitting themselves about ethics, it's actually pretty ethical to admit as much. -
andytheadequate wrote:
You're in luck! http://www.objectivegamereviews.com/
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. -
Cappy 14,394 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoThe general consensus is that Dying Light's story doesn't distinguish itself, so what exactly would lift the game in Jim Sterling's estimation if he played through the second half?
He's seen much of what there is to see, all that remains is skills and upgrades of skills and a few cutscenes does that really make that much difference? Bashing a zombie is much the same, however it's done.
Edited by Cappy at 14:16:03 30-01-2015 -
Not-a-reviewer 7,686 posts
Seen 1 week ago
Registered 7 years agoRyanDS wrote:
% of people that get to the end of a game < 5%
Mass Effect 3: 10/10
Mas Effect 3: Having seen the ending 7/10
Fallout 3: 10/10
Fallout 3: after "why the fuck do I commit suicide when I have someone immune to radiation standing next to me? "9/10"
But those are rare examples. Generally any game based around gameplay (sports, platformers, FPS and so on) I would say you can review fairly early. Any story based game really needs to be seen through to the end to judge though. (RPGs, JRPGs, Point and Click adventures etc.)
Edit: Or a 3rd example:
Brothers Tale of 2 sons: (I think that was the name) 7/10
Brothers having seen the ending: 10/10 -
JoelStinty 9,530 posts
Seen 10 hours ago
Registered 8 years agoYou generally can't win with this one. It one of those unfortunate side effects of the industry, but considering the climate around it, it was bound to be picked up upon.
I don't think you can review games under ideal conditions. You have embargoes and limited time to review games. Sometimes you can't review games unless you are a review event (which ironically only has a day or so playtime to get to grips with it), sometimes you are not sent review copies till the last minute, as in dying light. There an obvious workload, especially come october/november and march where there are a fuck ton of games to get through. If anything i don't think it is Jim fault. Sure it stinks a little bit, but he is honest - but conditions to review games aren't great. It made worse by publishers controlling how it is done as well.
On one hand you are rushing around to review games, and on the other you have a vocal minoirty of cunts complaining every two seconds where are my reviews. Fuck sake Eurogamer why are you not reviewing Dying light. etc. -
TPReview 1,380 posts
Seen 10 months ago
Registered 9 years ago@Cappy but the isue is that in this game it seems like the gameplay does change throughout the game. The skills you get change the way you move, the way you engage and how much fun you have with different elements a lot more than in a game like Mass Effect where the combat is the same all the way through.
Imagine if someone played World of Warcraft for five hours and then reviewed it. Of course they'd have a sense of what hitting enemies and looting is like, and even what the Deadmines is like as group content. However they've got no idea what a raid is like or how having a flying mount changes things or the competition in the arena.
Some games take a long time to show everything they have to offer (not all) and reviewing a game based on a small slice of it is going to be misleading, unless you clearly state 'This is just a review of the first five hours' -
Derblington 35,161 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 17 years agoCappy wrote:
Exactly.
The general consensus is that Dying Light's story doesn't distinguish itself, so what exactly would lift the game in Jim Sterling's estimation if he played through the second half?
He's seen much of what there is to see, all that remains is skills and upgrades of skills and a few cutscenes does that really make that much difference? Bashing a zombie is much the same, however it's done.
Say Dying Light has 10 main missions, and it's "bad" to review it unless you've played all 20 to completion.
What detail do you miss out on by only playing 19 and not the last one?
What detail do you miss out on by playing 18, and not the last two?
Realistically, you've got the game sussed out by the midpoint. At what percentage is ok to say 'I know enough'? -
TPReview 1,380 posts
Seen 10 months ago
Registered 9 years agoBut how do you know when that point is unless you have all the available information?
In a vacuum someone could play Far Cry 4 and never leave that first table. They'd see the credits roll and be like 'that game was awful, you couldn't do anything but look around'. How would they know they missed out on basically the whole game?
That's an extreme example but it's true of most games. I didn't review Street Fighter IV because while I played through the arcade mode, I understood that I hadn't experienced the high level competetive play it was designed for, I couldn't offer any useful opinion on that. In Brutal Legend the first part of the game is almost entirely different to the rest, In Bioshock one of the best things about the game comes around 75% of the way through. -
Derblington 35,161 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 17 years agoTPReview wrote:
It doesn't change. You earn shortcuts to make things easier.
@Cappy but the isue is that in this game it seems like the gameplay does change throughout the game. The skills you get change the way you move, the way you engage and how much fun you have with different elements a lot more than in a game like Mass Effect where the combat is the same all the way through.
You can complete Dying Light without earning / spending all the points. Are you suggesting that you don't just have to complete the game, but play all the content and earn and use each ability until you know enough to review it?
Only a few of the abilities actually add much to the gameplay, many are just variations on a theme.
Providing you've played the game for a handful of hours and progress with the skills to see and experience the feel of how they work, you've seen enough. -
nickthegun 87,711 posts
Seen 8 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoThe thing is ToiletPaperReview, it would have been perfectly acceptable to review SF4 as a n00b if you had explicitly stated so.
I play it a *lot* but I'm aware that it pretty much impenetrable to casual users and it SHOULD be judged for that.
'This is a review for SF4 by someone who doesn't play fighting games.
The single player mode is shit and the tutorial mode is terrible. The only way you are going to get better is by watching YouTube vids'
Would actually be incredibly helpful for people thinking about jumping onboard and a totally fair aspect to review it from. -
you should finish single player games before reviewing them, but for that to be a reasonable request we, the audience, should not expect reviews out on the day of release.
it's not realistic to assume that reviewers can play 60+hr adventure games in under a week, but at the same time i wonder how reviewers can in good conscience write a review for a game they've not finished? so many games either become a better or worse prospect the longer you play them, so it's vital IMO.
i'd much rather the obsession with pre-orders and "day 1" went away - this isn't the film industry, it's videogames; they are often slow-burning huge time commitments, and we should want measured reviews from someone who has played the game to completion at their own pace, rather than get as much done as they could in the review event in some hotel somewhere.
EDIT - at the same time, if a game was so morosely tedious that the reviewer didn't feel like they can go on, then that is fair enough as well - that's a reason to give it a negative review.
Edited by bobomb at 15:28:27 30-01-2015 -
RedPanda87 2,169 posts
Seen 15 hours ago
Registered 14 years agoEG's Life is Strange review to me highlights the fact that you should finish a game before scoring it (not that I was in any doubt about that). It and other episodic games don't get given a score on EG until the the whole series is out, because knowing how one episode plays doesn't mean you know how the whole thing will pan out.
Not everywhere does this of course but the reverse highlights the same issue. IGN for example will score episodes individually and sometimes one episode of the same game will get a far higher score than another, which again shows that the quality and focus of a game can change as you progress.
There are a few good points in this thread about not finishing games before reviewing them- mostly the fact that it's not always practical to do so, but if you don't then I don't think you should stick a score on the end, much as EG is avoiding with its episodic reviews. -
RedPanda87 2,169 posts
Seen 15 hours ago
Registered 14 years agoI guess the key is transparency though. Clearly a lot of people have no problem with reviews being written before a game has been finished. This surprises me, but for them the answer is yes. For me the answer is no, not least because I know that my opinion of a game will often change, sometimes significantly, after I've put a lot of hours in and I'm surprised that's not the case for more people.
But as long as reviewers are open about how much of a game they've played I can factor that in and ignore the ones that haven't played it much. In Sterling's defence he did do that, and that along with the fact that he comes across as a colossal twat means I won't be visiting his site again. I still don't think those sorts of reviews should have scores though, especially when Metacritic is so influential right down to affecting developers bonuses. -
Ultrasoundwave 6,440 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 11 years agoStranded87 wrote:
Exactly - this is what I'm annoyed about. The guys at Techland, most likely guys with family's and kids, will see that Sterling has only played 60% of Dying Light and slapped a 5/10 on it, which to me is him being very disrespectful of them. Like you say, the influence that Metacritic has these days is crazy, some people can even lose their jobs if a game doesn't hit a certain score!
I guess the key is transparency though. Clearly a lot of people have no problem with reviews being written before a game has been finished. This surprises me, but for them the answer is yes. For me the answer is no, not least because I know that my opinion of a game will often change, sometimes significantly, after I've put a lot of hours in and I'm surprised that's not the case for more people.
But as long as reviewers are open about how much of a game they've played I can factor that in and ignore the ones that haven't played it much. In Sterling's defence he did do that, and that along with the fact that he comes across as a colossal twat means I won't be visiting his site again. I still don't think those sorts of reviews should have scores though, especially when Metacritic is so influential right down to affecting developers bonuses.
If there is any justice, WB Games won't send him a review copy of Arkham Knight.....or better yet, only send him 60% of the game - he can make up his own fucking ending.
Edited by Ultrasoundwave at 15:49:00 30-01-2015
Edited by Ultrasoundwave at 15:49:32 30-01-2015 -
It depends on a lot of factors. If I'm getting paid by the word, I won't mind spending a couple of hours to blart out a 9/10 for whoa Dave but I'm not going to spend 20+ on something for the same recompense just incase I get a new sword.
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.
