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