Do Reviewers Need to Finish Video Games Before Reviewing Them?

Avatar image for countpickles
CountPickles

639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

11

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Poll Do Reviewers Need to Finish Video Games Before Reviewing Them? (860 votes)

Yes 46%
No 54%

I apologize if this has come up before but I was very troubled by the latest Waypoint Podcast, where they discussed video game reviews. There were a lot of issues that came up in that discussion that I don't agree with but the one that I want to focus on the most was Patrick Klepek's statement to the effect of "Its 2017, you don't need to finish video games to review them". Its not an exact quote, so... don't quote me on it, but it was a fairly bizarre thing for me to hear. My understanding of it is that game reviewers feel they don't need to complete the video games they're reviewing in order to review them.

Now, I am open to the fact that I misunderstood what he said but this is a topic that I've heard from other video games people too.

I am firmly on the side that a game has to be finished before rendering any judgement on it. This seems almost fundamental to me. But I am open to having my mind changed on this if I am missing out on something here.

Now, there needs to be some clarification ... which is why I didn't add a "It Depends" choice to the poll.

By finished I don't mean 100%. Im sure you can make an argument for/against that, but the best way I can explain this is, if I am reading your review of Breath of the Wild, I expect you to have finished the story and have seen the whole game world, and have a good idea of what the game's mechanics are. It doesn't mean that you needed to have collected all the Korok seeds or have done all the side quests for me to take you seriously, but you should have an understanding of what those entail. So, when I mean finished, I mean it in a way that another reasonable person would consider as also finished given the game in question.

Another example would be something like Persona 5. I don't expect you to have maxed out your social links with every character through multiple playthroughs to be able to render judgment on it. But I do expect you to have finished the game and be able to talk about the mechanics and story, and how the path you took through the game affected you. Additionally, on things you missed, I hope you would be aware that if you missed out on something, that what you skipped doesn't dramatically alter the game. Like, for instance, if you max out your social link with one character, the game becomes a top-down shooter or something. Its an extreme example, I know, but hopefully you understand my point.

And, yes, Im aware this veers off into the idea of subjectivity in reviews (which is a minefield, I know) but, lets just assume reviews are for people who want to have another perspective on whether they'll like a game or not. Im not going to get into the idea of subjectivity here, unless I must.

Another clarification is, if you state you only played 5 hours or so in your review, then it begs the question as to why anyone would read it with any alacrity. Again, I take a definition of "finished" or "completed" as something a reasonable person would also agree upon. Multiplayer or "Mechanics-Heavy"-games like Overwatch or PUBG are not excused from this either. If you are reviewing those games, I expect you to have a good enough understanding of those games' mechanics to be able to recommend them or not to a person, given that 30 or 40 dollars is at stake here.

Ill just leave off with some pro and anti arguments for the topic. Again, for me, It feels like I'm taking crazy pills when I hear people say they don't need to finish the game in order to review it, but I want to be as even-handed in my approach to this as possible.

Yes, Video Games should be Finished before Reviewing Them

Undertale: I stopped repeatedly when playing this game because the opening few hours rubbed me the wrong way. I found it cloying and very annoying with terrible gameplay. But as I continued through it, I beat it and realized what it was. Then I beat it again, and realized it was something different. Undertale is without a doubt a game that firmly now is in my all time favourites, and had I not completed it, it would be a game I would have long since forgotten. Im glad I finished it.

Nier: You need to beat this game 3 times to get the full picture and to experience all the diversity in the game's mechanics. Its the flip side from Undertale for me, because had I walked away from the game after the first play through, I would have enjoyed it a lot more. It would have skewed my perspective of the full game. It turns out the game is not good, in my opinion, of course.

No, You Don't Need to Finish the Video Game before Reviewing It

The best argument I've heard from this side was in the Waypoint podcast, itself. It was to do with the recent Crash Bandicoot re-release.

Yes, it does seem a bit weird that people want a review of an ancient game, like that, however, I would simply argue that in a modern context, how does that game hold up? So, while this is still the best argument I've heard, its still something that I feel should be finished in order to best provide a consumer with information as to why or why not they should buy it. Are there technical problems later on? Do the Crash games get better as you play them? How do all the games mesh together in one product? etc.

Regardless, I've rambled on and on, and I am extremely interested to know if I am wrong here. Its simply a ridiculous notion for me to think that game reviewers don't need to finish the game but, again, I'm open to having my mind changed on this.

 • 
Avatar image for kamui97
Kamui97

185

Forum Posts

2826

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

There's a difference between reviews and impressions. If a "critic" is posting a final review with score and its on Metacritic, I expect the reviewer to have a comprehensive experience with the game. Doesn't mean 100%, but full story, end credits, different modes. I really appreciated Jeff posting the Injustice review after e3, a month after release. That kind of thing is why giant bomb's platform feels so much more organic. If someone is not interested in a game, or stops halfway through, that is fine and that is worthwhile information on the side. But for a official review there definitely should be standards and minimums on these things.

I hate reviews, or definitive statements made about games by people who are clearly rushed for time or deadlines. The one that enraged me was seeing critic reviews for The Witness on metacritic by people who clearly hadn't played 1/10th of that game yet. Like, Personas 4 and 5 game have pretty meh first quarters, before becoming awesome midway through. It took Jeff like 2 weeks to turn around on Zelda. 100+ hour games take time to build. That's why video games are so much harder to review compared to movies, because the playing part is incredibly time-consuming.

The thing is though, by this point, it's so easy to identify different quality of reviews. Not just the good ones, but like the difference between someone rushing for embargo and someone who treats games professionally. Brad shat all over Mass Effect, but wrote like 2000 words and read as incredibly passionate and disheartened by it. In short, I enjoy giant bomb. Everyone here is so relaxed and unstressed out all the time.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e851fc84effd
deactivated-5e851fc84effd

1714

Forum Posts

53

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

I feel like not "finishing" a game for review is a lot more likely to happen with bad games.

A lot of reviewers also see their job as being the gatekeepers to a customers wallet, which is another topic. But if those two viewpoints coincide, it makes perfect sense that they should have the option of not finishing a game while still providing a review.

I think it also depends on what each persons idea of what a review is and should be.

Avatar image for spaceinsomniac
SpaceInsomniac

6353

Forum Posts

42

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Do game reviewers need to finish video games before reviewing them?

Do game developers need to finish games before shipping them?

Yes. The answer is yes. Do your job.

Avatar image for bigsocrates
bigsocrates

6149

Forum Posts

162

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Two games I have played recently made me think about this question again. Agents of Mayhem started out intriguing but didn't do enough with its premise and had too much cut and paste, becoming a slog before it was over. If I had stopped a third or halfway through I might have had a higher opinion of the game (and assumed the back half was better) than where I ended up.

Uncharted: Lost Legacy started strong for me but dipped towards the middle. However it picked back up in the back half and I ended up really enjoying it. If I had only played the first half of that game I would have had a lower opinion than where I ended up because I thought the best set pieces, story bits, and locations were in the back half.

Both games reinforced my opinion that reviewers should finish games unless they cannot be finished or are so bad that there's just no point in seeing if they get better. I want a review to tell me if a game falls apart in the back half, or if it is a bit of a slow starter and saves the best for last.

I really don't understand people who say "you know how good a game is from the first few hours and can review it from there." That's not my experience at all. I think MANY games are uneven and deserve criticism if they fail to build on their beginning or praise if they pull things together and finish strong.

Avatar image for jstaunton
jstaunton

740

Forum Posts

6

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Of course not. As has been said whenever this has come up on the bombcast. Depends on the game though.

Avatar image for kave
Kave

8

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

It really depends on the game and the reviewers experience in the genre and with the developer.

For example, I can play 10 hours of Uncharted 4 and know what I am getting until the credits roll. I know the developer, have played many similar games, I can smell the polish!

On the other hand, when I started Persona 5, I didn't really know the genre. I played 10 hours and was in love. By the time I hit the fifth dungeon and sixty hours, I was bored to be honest. The pacing of the game was all over the place and I put the game away.

That's not to say professional reviewers shouldn't make the effort if they have the time. It shows when they haven't put in the legwork!

Avatar image for deactivated-63c9a5152a56a
deactivated-63c9a5152a56a

729

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

If I've played a 40 hour game for 10 hours and those 10 hours were total dogshit, then I feel safe saying it's a bad video game.

Avatar image for xdeser2
Xdeser2

454

Forum Posts

63

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Im going to vote no, with with the huge caveat that it really depends on the game being played.

Avatar image for quarters
Quarters

2661

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

They absolutely should finish the game. That would be like the film critics giving their review after watching only the first hour of the movie. You have to see how the thing ends. Sure, you can give impressions of the gameplay before then, but an actual review is absurd if you haven't finished.

Avatar image for hermes
hermes

3000

Forum Posts

81

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

No, although some amount of hours would be required, I don't think someone's opinion is invalid unless they didn't complete the game.

Games like Skyrim, X-Com, Sims, FIFA or Civilization can be experienced fully without ever "completing" a game. Should I discount an opinion of someone that played 50 hours of Fallout 4 but didn't bother with the main quest?

Also, there are many games that most likely won't get good after being mediocre for a dozen hours, so I would much rather have an opinion of the incomplete experience than the rebuttal of "you should complete Final Fantasy 13, it gets good after the first 20 hours...", because then I would rather not play it at all.

Avatar image for hermes
hermes

3000

Forum Posts

81

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

#211  Edited By hermes

@quarters: The problem is, the commitment to one thing is entirely different than another. You can see most entire movies, even the longest ones (and all the special features), in a single morning. Long games can take up to several days, unless you hone in on the main quest (and doing that with some games like GTA5 or Fallout4 would result in an experience as incomplete as not finishing it).

A better example would be a film critic having an opinion on the Marvel Cinematic Universe, although he never saw past Thor: The Dark World...

Avatar image for jadves
jadves

13

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#212  Edited By jadves

In most cases I would put less faith in a review if the writer didn't finish the game. Unless of course the game was broken or had some kind of serious flaw which prevented or hindered completion.

In those circumstances the fact that the reviewer didn't/couldn't complete the game only makes me take the criticism more seriously.

Avatar image for chinakat65
chinakat65

5

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#213  Edited By chinakat65

I would say that not finishing a game should be the exception, not the rule. In general, understanding how a game is paced from start to finish is critical to understanding the overall quality of the game. Imagine if a reviewer only played half of Recore; they would probably give it an enthusiastic recommendation since they did not know about the lackluster second half. The player who picked it up however, would probably feel ripped off. For most games, knowing how consistent the quality is all the way until the end is important.

However, I think there are times where I personally don't mind if a reviewer finishes a game or not (I never really care that much, I would just choose to go to another critic if I took issue):

1. Wolpaw's Law. If the first 2/3 of the game is utterly horrible, I do not care how the last 1/3 turns out, and I don't care if the reviewer knows either. It's totally okay for a reviewer to come to the conclusion that, based on what s/he's played so far, that it is not worth it, no matter how good the rest of the game could be.

2. Really large open world games where the plot is kind of inconsequential. I've never finished Skyrim's main quest. That being said, I have over 100 hours clocked in on that game. Have I played enough to write a meaningful review? I certainly think so. For Bethesda style games, I'm more concerned with how much time they clocked in, rather than if they "beat the game" or not. This is personal, of course. This also applies to MMOs; I do not expect critics to get to max level before writing a review. That could take forever.

3. Rereleases of old games that the reviewer has already played. I count Gamespot's review of the Crash Bandicoot N. Sane trilogy here. After playing half of a rerelease, a critic has a very good understanding of the sorts of changes that have been made, and what s/he thinks of them. If they already beat the original versions, then they already know how the pacing is, and how consistent the quality is, so I don't think its a big deal to beat the game all over again to deliver a valid verdict on the rerelease.

In general though, its a good idea to finish the game, as the quality can change drastically over the course of the entire experience.

Avatar image for sqrabbit
sqrabbit

177

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@undefined: They should just mark the articles as opinion pieces or hot takes. If they are flagging it as a review, finish (not 100%). MMOs are the only real grey area.

Avatar image for welding
Welding

356

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

It's a case by case basis. If the game requires finishing for a reviewer to have a credible opinion (example: Gone Home) then definitely.

If the game itself isn't interested in it's own narrative build up, and finally, ending (example: Destiny 1) then no.

Avatar image for littlelyca
littlelyca

18

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

For me, they have to finish the game before reviewing it. You can't call it a review if the writer is not even half way of the game. I'd rather have it called as 1st impression.

Avatar image for mocbucket62
MocBucket62

2688

Forum Posts

1106

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 7

It helps so the reviewers can give the consumer the general idea of how the whole experience is when playing the game. I don't think its necessary since the reviewer needs to spend some time with another or many other reviews for the job. At least get to a point where you've played enough of the game to form your opinion and rate it based on how much they liked or disliked the game.