Website Anti-recommendation: gaygamer.net

Warning:  Venting to follow.
 
Someone linked me to a review for Kingdom Hearts:  358/2 Days at gaygamer.net.  It's not a website that I normally visit, but I've been playing and enjoying the game, and it's interesting seeing how the reviews have compared to each other.  However, this review in particular is one of the worst I've ever read, and what's worse is the reviewer was completely open about slacking on the job.  He didn't even come close to finishing the game.
 
I'll admit that I've stopped playing plenty of games in the middle because they were either not fun or too frustrating to finish.  I'll also note that I respect the reviewer's opinion in his dislike of the game.  Still, when write a review, you should make sure that you've finished it first.  Don't give up five worlds in and slap a 4 out of 10 at the bottom just because you couldn't be bothered to finish it.  If you review a game for an editorial website of any nature, I expect you to complete as much of the game as one could reasonably ask, whether that be beating the campaign and experiencing the entire narrative, playing through all of the modes in a fighting game as well as giving the online a fair go (if said online is actually operational), or playing through a season in a sports game.  Don't just quit in the middle and call it good (or bad).
 
Do not trust the reviews posted on gaygamer.net.  There are better sources out there.

Warning:  Venting to follow.
 
Someone linked me to a review for Kingdom Hearts:  358/2 Days at gaygamer.net.  It's not a website that I normally visit, but I've been playing and enjoying the game, and it's interesting seeing how the reviews have compared to each other.  However, this review in particular is one of the worst I've ever read, and what's worse is the reviewer was completely open about slacking on the job.  He didn't even come close to finishing the game.
 
I'll admit that I've stopped playing plenty of games in the middle because they were either not fun or too frustrating to finish.  I'll also note that I respect the reviewer's opinion in his dislike of the game.  Still, when write a review, you should make sure that you've finished it first.  Don't give up five worlds in and slap a 4 out of 10 at the bottom just because you couldn't be bothered to finish it.  If you review a game for an editorial website of any nature, I expect you to complete as much of the game as one could reasonably ask, whether that be beating the campaign and experiencing the entire narrative, playing through all of the modes in a fighting game as well as giving the online a fair go (if said online is actually operational), or playing through a season in a sports game.  Don't just quit in the middle and call it good (or bad).
 
Do not trust the reviews posted on gaygamer.net.  There are better sources out there.

I thought this was going to be homosexual related.
 
Enjoy some classic sega stuff dude.
 
 http://www.giantbomb.com/sega/65-62/what-are-some-kick-ass-classic-sega-bgm/35-266357/

So because it has a review you disagree with, it is a website you do not recommend it? I mean besides the fact that the website isn't there for reviews, isn't it a bit selfish of you?

I agree with you on that rule, which is why all the games I blog about have been beaten. By me.

" Warning:  Venting to follow.
 
Someone linked me to a review for Kingdom Hearts:  358/2 Days at gaygamer.net.  It's not a website that I normally visit, but I've been playing and enjoying the game, and it's interesting seeing how the reviews have compared to each other.  However, this review in particular is one of the worst I've ever read, and what's worse is the reviewer was completely open about slacking on the job.  He didn't even come close to finishing the game. I'll admit that I've stopped playing plenty of games in the middle because they were either not fun or too frustrating to finish.  I'll also note that I respect the reviewer's opinion in his dislike of the game.  Still, when write a review, you should make sure that you've finished it first.  Don't give up five worlds in and slap a 4 out of 10 at the bottom just because you couldn't be bothered to finish it.  If you review a game for an editorial website of any nature, I expect you to complete as much of the game as one could reasonably ask, whether that be beating the campaign and experiencing the entire narrative, playing through all of the modes in a fighting game as well as giving the online a fair go (if said online is actually operational), or playing through a season in a sports game.  Don't just quit in the middle and call it good (or bad).  Do not trust the reviews posted on gaygamer.net.  There are better sources out there. "

 Axel meets Roxas on day one and they're already best acquaintances, and they remain exactly like that for the rest of the game, without a smidgen of growth

" So because it has a review you disagree with, it is a website you do not recommend it? I mean besides the fact that the website isn't there for reviews, isn't it a bit selfish of you? "

" @Snipzor said:

" So because it has a review you disagree with, it is a website you do not recommend it? I mean besides the fact that the website isn't there for reviews, isn't it a bit selfish of you? "

I think his point is he wished the reviewer would have finished the game before going at it. "

To paraphrase Old Man Murray: if you read the first fifty or hundred pages of a book and it sucks, you're not going to keep reading it.  Likewise, even if a game suddenly becomes good after the first eight hours, why should that matter if those eight hours are god-the-fuck-awful? 
 
The guy did what he should have done: he fully admitted to not finishing the game, yet was able to adequately defend his position and reasoning for doing so in a way that showed that he was fully educated on the mechanics of the game and had seen enough to know that he seeing any more wouldn't change his opinion.  You may not agree with his opinion or even what he did, but that seems pretty fair to me.

" There's enough reviews out there already. Someone reviewed a game based on his experience with it. Oh SHIT. "

" @Toxin066 said:

" @Snipzor said:

" So because it has a review you disagree with, it is a website you do not recommend it? I mean besides the fact that the website isn't there for reviews, isn't it a bit selfish of you? "

I think his point is he wished the reviewer would have finished the game before going at it. "

Precisely.  Whether the review was good or bad, I can't take it seriously if the reviewer doesn't put in the effort to finish the game before writing it up. "

"Imagine if everyone reviewed a game after playing less than half of it. "

" To paraphrase Old Man Murray: if you read the first fifty or hundred pages of a book and it sucks, you're not going to keep reading it.  Likewise, even if a game suddenly becomes good after the first eight hours, why should that matter if those eight hours are god-the-fuck-awful?  The guy did what he should have done: he fully admitted to not finishing the game, yet was able to adequately defend his position and reasoning for doing so in a way that showed that he was fully educated on the mechanics of the game and had seen enough to know that he seeing any more wouldn't change his opinion.  You may not agree with his opinion or even what he did, but that seems pretty fair to me. "

I generally agree with that rule, however, there are times I feel not beating the game makes a louder statement than saying  "I beat it even though I didn't like it". The go-to example I always use is the Last Remnant. Oh gods did I try to beat that game, I really did, and made it through about 90% of the campaign. However, I died after a particularly long and grueling set of three battles with no stop in between and knew I would have to repeat this "three really long battles with no breaks" monotony at least 4 more times as that's how the campaign is set up and called it quits. I was confident I knew enough about the game to form an educated opinion and say "This game sucks. Period." There was no feature or aspect that could have possibly appeared beyond that point that would have changed my view and I felt like I was able to give a well-informed opinion even if I hadn't got all the way to the end.
 
Frankly, the game didn't deserve to be finished; it wasn't worth my time and I don't feel it's worth anyone's time. If a game feels that broken, I would not hold it against the reviewer if they had not beaten it but had played enough to form an educated opinion (Alex Navarro's review of "Big Rigs" immediately springs to mind). That said, Last Remnant remains the only game I've reviewed that I have not finished(and never plan on finishing).

" @Asurastrike said:

"Imagine if everyone reviewed a game after playing less than half of it. "

11 hours is long enough if the game sucks. "

I do not see a problem with this sort of review as long as the reviewer plainly and honestly states how much of the game he or she played. 
 
That way those of us who have a problem with that sort of experiential review can simply disregard it, and those of us who can relate to someone not wanting to finish a shitty game don't have to.

" @Asurastrike said:

"Imagine if everyone reviewed a game after playing less than half of it. "

11 hours is long enough if the game sucks. "

I would say you've completed less then 1% of that web site. So, how can you judge it? 
 
Oh that's right. You can't.

" I would say you've completed less then 1% of that web site. So, how can you judge it?   Oh that's right. You can't. "

I don't go to gaygamer.net because I'm not gay, and therefore don't need any of the gay-focused content the site offers. However, you review a game after you finish it. If you don't finish it, you don't write a review. Maybe you write an editorial about why you didn't finish it, or maybe you just drop it altogether, but reviewing a game before you finish it is pretty damn ridiculous.

" @Hailinel: It's trustworthy because the reviewer explicitly stated how much of the game he played. Thus, you know his review is based on the first 11 hours of the game. It's really not rocket science. 
 
Gaygamer is pretty honest about this stuff. It's the websites that don't tell about these things that you need to be wary of. "

"Do you always finish games before reviewing them?" 

The straight answer is no, not necessarily. The main reason is that not all games are capable of being finished, which would make a policy of finishing all games before reviewing them impossible to enforce. For example, sports games and massively multiplayer online role-playing games have no definite conclusion. Likewise, many multiplayer-focused games cannot be finished but must be played extensively before they can be honestly evaluated. Our rule is that we play games extensively before committing to our full reviews. On average, this translates into at least 10 hours' worth of play, though some games demand much more than that, and some require less.

 @Hailinel said:

" @carlthenimrod: Whether the rest of their non-review features are quality I can't say, but why should I trust their reviews when I can't be assured that they're completing the games they review? "

I agree with Red insofar that it should've been an editorial rather then a review about how he couldn't finish the game because of it's perceived shittiness.
 
Also, the mechanic comparison doesn't work at all.
If I were going to compare it to something I'd say it was like a shitty movie with a tremendous twist ending that the reviewer didn't see because he walked out.
 
As I said, I disagree that it should've been fully reviewed, but I could still see an editorial sans a score explaining why the reviewer couldn't finish the game. As for boycotting an entire website after reading one review, I find that rather short sighted, but to each their own.

" @Hailinel: There are different school of thought on this, and I think you'll be surprised to learn how few outlets share your view. 
 
From the GameSpot FAQ: 

"Do you always finish games before reviewing them?" 

The straight answer is no, not necessarily. The main reason is that not all games are capable of being finished, which would make a policy of finishing all games before reviewing them impossible to enforce. For example, sports games and massively multiplayer online role-playing games have no definite conclusion. Likewise, many multiplayer-focused games cannot be finished but must be played extensively before they can be honestly evaluated. Our rule is that we play games extensively before committing to our full reviews. On average, this translates into at least 10 hours' worth of play, though some games demand much more than that, and some require less.

"

I really don't see why gay gamers need their own website.
 
Seriously.

" I really don't see why gay gamers need their own website.   Seriously. "

there's an irony in people wanting a game to be played from beinging to end, yet they don't want to know anything about it in fear that it'll ruin their experience.

As long as the reviewer openly says that he hasn't finished the game, I don't see anything wrong with it. What he played was enough for him to know he was not interested. That's a valid experience. You may not agree with it but that doesn't make it any less valid.

Not all reviewers finish the game they actually are reviewing. I don't recall who it was if it was Listen UP or Out Of The Game who where talking about time issues on reviewing games... Actually i think it was Bitmob who talked about it. Anyhow they gave some good reasons why sometime there just isn't time enough. 
 
Edit: It was Bitmob's Mobcast episode 23

I dont think you have to finish a game to review it, or even come close for that matter. Nearly all games require the use of a core gameplay mechanic throughout. If that mechanic insnt fun from the start there is probably no reason to continue. Also, if a games final 5 hours are amazing, but its first 10 only so so. Thats not a good game.
 
I, even if I were a reviewer, owe nothing to these developers, if a game isnt grabbing me I think its shit and would therefore give it a bad score. End of story.

First off, I wouldn't write off a whole website based off of one review.  Secondly, I don't believe that in order to review a game, the writer must have beaten the game.  I don't think it's necessary to have driven every track in a racing game, or completed every quest in an RPG.  Enough of the game should be played in order to get a substantial feel for the game, but 100% completion is unnecessary in my book.  
 
I've been to Gaygamer.com on occasion for news.  It's not a site I regularly visit but when I have been there, I found their news satisfactory.  

As long as they make the point very clear as to how much of the game they played, I suppose you can factor that into whether the review is worth reading or not.  It certainly isn't worthy of contributing to a Metacritic score. It would be better described as a Preview rather than a Review in circumstances like this, and therefore, no score should be given.

I think the more interesting question here is the validity of this review, with taking this play time into context. He played it for 11 hours. I am reading things that state in 11 hours he should have been further in the game then he was. I then pose the question: what if he sucks at RPGs? or what if RPGs do not interest him? I have friends who would take 11 hours to just get past the "tutorial" in most RPGs, simply because they don't like playing them and go about the game in such a way it obstructs from a standard play time. Does this reflect badly on the game?  I would have to say no. The thing with games that have such deeply embedded genre codes is that they require a specific style of playing, if the review lacks, or does not enjoy that style he is going to find faults with the game and give up.

" I think the more interesting question here is the validity of this review, with taking this play time into context. He played it for 11 hours. I am reading things that state in 11 hours he should have been further in the game then he was. I then pose the question: what if he sucks at RPGs? or what if RPGs do not interest him? I have friends who would take 11 hours to just get past the "tutorial" in most RPGs, simply because they don't like playing them and go about the game in such a way it obstructs from a standard play time. Does this reflect badly on the game?  I would have to say no. The thing with games that have such deeply embedded genre codes is that they require a specific style of playing, if the review lacks, or does not enjoy that style he is going to find faults with the game and give up. "

" @klownboots said:

" I think the more interesting question here is the validity of this review, with taking this play time into context. He played it for 11 hours. I am reading things that state in 11 hours he should have been further in the game then he was. I then pose the question: what if he sucks at RPGs? or what if RPGs do not interest him? I have friends who would take 11 hours to just get past the "tutorial" in most RPGs, simply because they don't like playing them and go about the game in such a way it obstructs from a standard play time. Does this reflect badly on the game?  I would have to say no. The thing with games that have such deeply embedded genre codes is that they require a specific style of playing, if the review lacks, or does not enjoy that style he is going to find faults with the game and give up. "

True.  Which causes me to lean on the side of it being a bad review (the  industry is littered with them). "

" To paraphrase Old Man Murray: if you read the first fifty or hundred pages of a book and it sucks, you're not going to keep reading it.  Likewise, even if a game suddenly becomes good after the first eight hours, why should that matter if those eight hours are god-the-fuck-awful?  The guy did what he should have done: he fully admitted to not finishing the game, yet was able to adequately defend his position and reasoning for doing so in a way that showed that he was fully educated on the mechanics of the game and had seen enough to know that he seeing any more wouldn't change his opinion.  You may not agree with his opinion or even what he did, but that seems pretty fair to me. "

Fuck playing the whole game. If the review thinks it sucks, why would you expect him to play it to the end? 
 
It seems like you disagreed with his review because you liked the game and you were trying to find a reason to dismiss his opinion. In that case, everyone should read the review, since that was the only criticism you bought forth.

" @iAmJohn said:

" To paraphrase Old Man Murray: if you read the first fifty or hundred pages of a book and it sucks, you're not going to keep reading it.  Likewise, even if a game suddenly becomes good after the first eight hours, why should that matter if those eight hours are god-the-fuck-awful?  The guy did what he should have done: he fully admitted to not finishing the game, yet was able to adequately defend his position and reasoning for doing so in a way that showed that he was fully educated on the mechanics of the game and had seen enough to know that he seeing any more wouldn't change his opinion.  You may not agree with his opinion or even what he did, but that seems pretty fair to me. "

I've got to disagree with you there. I wouldn't expect a film critic to walk out of a film because he doesn't like and then write a review about it, so I expect game reviewers to do the same. Unlike normal people, game reviewers are being paid to play the game and so no matter how much frustration they endure it's part of their job to give people their opinion on the whole game experience and, for me, they can't do that unless they complete a game. "

  This is just really stupid reasoning at work. Would you really expect someone to play 100 hours or so of Oblivion before finishing it? No. That's impossible. You normally beat the main story, and play a few sidemissions, playing up to 15 hours. That should give you the experience needed to review it.     
 
The analogy of a movie review is also incredibly wrong. A movie is two, maybe three hours long. Not one hundred hours.