Something went wrong. Try again later

Elk

This user has not updated recently.

142 317 38 21
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

Should reviewers play through?

Image via Wikipedia

So now I have Fallout 3 done and reviewed at Citizen Game (please go take a look), I'm now looking ahead to Midnight Club: LA and I believe this will be my first review without playing through the entire game first. It's always been my thought that no game should be reviewed without completing the main story first, but really, where does that end? To see all that Fallout 3 has to offer would require more time than reasonable and these side quests are really no less relevant than the main one except that they are purely optional. It makes me wonder if freelance writers get paid more to review Tales of Symphonia than, say, Gears of War. Either way, it should be up to the writer to decide how much of the game needs to be played and if you trust them enough that you're taking their review seriously then you should trust their judgement on when to cut the game short and put pen to paper (data to screen?).

What are your thoughts guys? Have you written any reviews without getting through the whole story? Where you satisfied with the outcome?

2 Comments

2 Comments

Avatar image for elk
Elk

142

Forum Posts

317

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 31

User Lists: 2

Edited By Elk

Image via Wikipedia

So now I have Fallout 3 done and reviewed at Citizen Game (please go take a look), I'm now looking ahead to Midnight Club: LA and I believe this will be my first review without playing through the entire game first. It's always been my thought that no game should be reviewed without completing the main story first, but really, where does that end? To see all that Fallout 3 has to offer would require more time than reasonable and these side quests are really no less relevant than the main one except that they are purely optional. It makes me wonder if freelance writers get paid more to review Tales of Symphonia than, say, Gears of War. Either way, it should be up to the writer to decide how much of the game needs to be played and if you trust them enough that you're taking their review seriously then you should trust their judgement on when to cut the game short and put pen to paper (data to screen?).

What are your thoughts guys? Have you written any reviews without getting through the whole story? Where you satisfied with the outcome?

Avatar image for pazy
Pazy

2774

Forum Posts

1556

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Pazy

I see this question discussed quite a lot but Ive only ever heard a definate answer when it comes to MMO's. There is absolutely no way you can ever "complete" an MMO, and even to get to the endgame of an MMO would mean you take so much time the reveiw is almost completly irrelevant since most people have bought the game weeks/months before.

My personal beleif is that when it comes to linier game a reveiwer should complete the entire single player story, complete all extra's (up to a certain point, such as Bionic Commando Rearmed's challenge rooms) and play say...5? hours of the Multiplayer.

The problem comes with games like Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Fable II and such. The story could take 40 hours, completing all side quest's could make a hundred and to see every weapon, potein and item could mean hundreds of hours. With these games I think it should be expected to complete the "main storyline", a certain amount of hours and a try a variety of weapons, items etc. When a reveiwer has enough practice they should know when they have played enough of an open world game to be able to judge it. I dont think anyone can ever say exactly what needs to be completed but reveiwers with enough practice will be able to know (hopefully).