Completing A Game Before Reviewing It?

[biglime]

Doing Consolevania right now, we've been debating this very issue.

Its hard for us, doing this on the cheap with no support from the games industry, to review anything properly and still seem reasonably up-to-date. So we've decided to be a bit behind everyone else, but at least play the games to completion. We just hope people appreciate the tricky situation any reviewer is in, when it comes to meeting deadlines, and let us off the hook when it comes to our material being a bit behind the rest.

Our get-out is that we'll also cover some new stuff, but will be totally open about how much we've played. If we've only managed to play twenty hours into something, we'll tell you exactly that. And we won't be calling this coverage 'reviews'.

I think that's the fairest way of doing it. Anything we review will be finished. Anything else we cover will give you our impressions of the game so far, and you take from that what you wish.

[Systemshock]

On one hand you can't make a first impression twice whilst on the other some games really need early perseverence to get the most out of. Either way you've got to wonder at any game developed with a poor beginning.

An example of a game that immediately kicks off on the right footing would be Metroid Prime (giving you for a small time lots of abilities that you then have to work to reclaim). On the other hand I hated Super Mario Sunshine until I had a dozen shines and then it became very very good - I nearly gave up on it though.

A review on balance should be based on the whole game (if possible) but early impressions are important.

[Tetchy]

Doing Consolevania right now, we've been debating this very issue.

Its hard for us, doing this on the cheap with no support from the games industry, to review anything properly and still seem reasonably up-to-date. So we've decided to be a bit behind everyone else, but at least play the games to completion. We just hope people appreciate the tricky situation any reviewer is in, when it comes to meeting deadlines, and let us off the hook when it comes to our material being a bit behind the rest.

Our get-out is that we'll also cover some new stuff, but will be totally open about how much we've played. If we've only managed to play twenty hours into something, we'll tell you exactly that. And we won't be calling this coverage 'reviews'.

I think that's the fairest way of doing it. Anything we review will be finished. Anything else we cover will give you our impressions of the game so far, and you take from that what you wish.

I like the sound of that, sort of an ongoing preview system. Perhaps with games like the FF series you could do game updates in following episodes to tell us about new abilities/levels/gameplay elements etc.

[WizRider]

What about writing a review in a kind of diary style?

A reviewer (web based) could post his impressions/critique as he goes on through the game over time.

Kind of like this:

Day: Monday 16th

Hours played: 4

Hour so far: 4

First impressions mean a lot. When I sat down to play GameX I was always hoping that it would pick up where Elite left off all those years ago.

Certainly the graphics seem to be good. The hi-res textures are especially nice, though the frame-rate has suffered a little bit so far. ...blah, blah, gameplay, blah...

Day: Wednesday 18th

Hours played: 6

Hour so far: 10

Damnit, I really wanted to like this game. So much has happened, the plot has opened up and Im really impressed (for a change) by the voice acting and the cut-scenes. But... the FRAME RATE. I spotted a few issues on Monday and hoped it wouldn't get any worse. Only now do I realise the full extent of it. In the second galaxy you arrive at, the battles become epic to say the least. While this is great for the plot and the feeling of being involved as a small cog in a big wheel, it also has it's problems. The frame rate is so poor as to make the game almost unplayable. I love the gameplay, its extremely deep and rewarding but... ...blah, blah, blah...

And it could go on from there. This way the reader would always appreciate exactly where the reviewer was coming from. A game could be added to/updated months later when the reviewer went back for another go. etc. etc.

It would become a lot more organic and maybe even let the player feel involved in the whole thing - especially if some readers could input advice on what to do and what to see in the game for the reviewer. It would become more interactive.

Ultimately deadlines could become more fluid too.

Just an idea...

[benh]

But in some circumstances take Rockstar they wanted the game review up within a week.

Why are they dictating when you publish your review?

[DJ Sack]

They normally dictate as then they can use it as advertising material for their websites/adverts, also it makesure it gets reviewed. But he's bg a cock, if you give one bad review not giving you the game. I suggest a big antioctar campeign on your site.

Also THQ did the same thing to EDGE when they wouldnt review certain games/give certain scores.

[PeteJ]

Just review the game when you are ready to do so, which may or may not be when the game is completed.

[Judas]

Yes. Of course you should. Are you serious? How can you pass comment on a game before you've explored if fully!

Ohhh so what you are saying is that Super Mario sunshine gets good.....at the end of the game?

[DJ Sack]

Skies of arcadia gets better the further in you get, goldeneye gets better on the harder difficultys, even Zelda OoT starts off crap and then gets loads better at the start of adult link.

[Judas]

Skies of arcadia gets better the further in you get, goldeneye gets better on the harder difficultys, even Zelda OoT starts off crap and then gets loads better at the start of adult link.

Skies of Arcadia turns into rubbish at the last location.

[SeanR]

They normally dictate as then they can use it as advertising material for their websites/adverts, also it makesure it gets reviewed. But he's bg a cock, if you give one bad review not giving you the game. I suggest a big antioctar campeign on your site.

Also THQ did the same thing to EDGE when they wouldnt review certain games/give certain scores.

No need to turn to drink over it...

[Uncle Nasty]

What about writing a review in a kind of diary style?

A reviewer (web based) could post his impressions/critique as he goes on through the game over time.

Kind of like this:

Day: Monday 16th

Hours played: 4

Hour so far: 4

First impressions mean a lot. When I sat down to play GameX I was always hoping that it would pick up where Elite left off all those years ago.

Certainly the graphics seem to be good. The hi-res textures are especially nice, though the frame-rate has suffered a little bit so far. ...blah, blah, gameplay, blah...

Day: Wednesday 18th

Hours played: 6

Hour so far: 10

Damnit, I really wanted to like this game. So much has happened, the plot has opened up and Im really impressed (for a change) by the voice acting and the cut-scenes. But... the FRAME RATE. I spotted a few issues on Monday and hoped it wouldn't get any worse. Only now do I realise the full extent of it. In the second galaxy you arrive at, the battles become epic to say the least. While this is great for the plot and the feeling of being involved as a small cog in a big wheel, it also has it's problems. The frame rate is so poor as to make the game almost unplayable. I love the gameplay, its extremely deep and rewarding but... ...blah, blah, blah...

And it could go on from there. This way the reader would always appreciate exactly where the reviewer was coming from. A game could be added to/updated months later when the reviewer went back for another go. etc. etc.

It would become a lot more organic and maybe even let the player feel involved in the whole thing - especially if some readers could input advice on what to do and what to see in the game for the reviewer. It would become more interactive.

Ultimately deadlines could become more fluid too.

Just an idea...

Good idea for a folder, dare I say it.

[DJ Sack]

Skies of Arcadia turns into rubbish at the last location.

How exactly? The last dungeon is just one huge climax which is then followed by the end of the game. Its the biggest climax in any game ever...maybe.

[The Liberal Elite]

Recently we had a complaint from Rockstar about a review on PMC for Manhunt. They claimed that we hadn't finished the game, and the review was inaccurate. This led to them taking us off there PR list for games, regardless that we had reviewed 8 of there games already and given them good scores, they seemed to get bad vibesd about the site, as he said on the phone.

So this led me to think, should you complete a game fully before reviewing it? And if so why?

well, you should at least give the impression of finishing it. i've just looked at your review, and I don't even see mention of a gun, which, as we've gone over in previous threads, changes the game dynamic entirely. and you mention it in passing, as if you'd heard they're in the game.

Would you be happy with reading a review about half a film? or half a play? or reviewing an album based on one song?

[RJames]

Come on though... Who really believes Rockstar PHONED UP robrymond04? Cheap publicity alert!

[JPickford (retired mod)]

What if a game is too hard?

I think there are plenty of cases where you can review a game without finishing it.

Jet Set Willy.

[iloverage]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

[JPickford (retired mod)]

If a game is shit for several hours then gets good it's a shit game.

If the best film ever made had several hours of 'Back to Reality Live' video tacked on the the start then it would become a shit film.

[D-Side]

Not all games can have an immediate hook though. Good games with complex plot or dynamics will lead the player by the hand to begin with, which may be off putting, potentially giving the impression of a bad game. Some games just come alive with persistance. Is this right? Maybe not. Is it true? Absolutely. The games we experience would be far less rich if all were built around arcade immediacy and reflex thrills.

[The Liberal Elite]

Come on though... Who really believes Rockstar PHONED UP robrymond04? Cheap publicity alert!

I don't know...i could see rockstar phoning them up to tell them that their review was total balls.

[JPickford (retired mod)]

Some games have slow starts - not the end of the world true. A reviewer should put some serious effort into it, but if it takes SEVERAL HOURS to become entertaining then I think that is a huge flaw.

I think its fair to review a game without completing it so long as the reviewer has made a genuine effort to evaluate the game.

[jtorry]

It seems odd to me that a big company such as Rockstar care so much about what is a fairly small site (no offence intended). I assume robrymond04, that it is just a site you run in your spare time? My site is openning in a month or so's time, so I have the fun of stroppy PR people to look forward too.

BTW, I like the diary idea someone came up with on this thread. Would that person mind if I used the idea for something on my site?

What do people think about going back to games (say a month later) and re-assessing them? I don't think changing the games score would be the right thing to do, but an additional paragraph at the end of the review highlighting your opions now you have had some extended time with the game. I doubt this could be done for all games, but maybe for the big releases it would be a good idea?

[JPickford (retired mod)]

I'd love to see a mag like Edge to mandatory follow-up reviews after one month. It would be interesting if game score could be modified based on that.

[D-Side]

A reviewer should put some serious effort into it, but if it takes SEVERAL HOURS to become entertaining then I think that is a huge flaw.

Meh. Manhunt has taken several hours to really pick up, but that's primarily a result of all the repetition. It's a hugely flawed game, not least because of it's skew-iff difficulty curve, but it is hugely entertaining.

In other words, I take your point, but there are quite a few games which come to mind that counter your point. I'll just mention one. Morrowind.

[The Liberal Elite]

out of interest, how many online review sites do people think is enough?

people complain about there being too many games magazines, but they're got nothing on the amount of games SITES, all expecting people to send them free games. what's the point?

[JPickford (retired mod)]

I'll just mention one. Morrowind.

Proves my point: It's 'shit' for hours...

Then shit for hours and hours and hours.

[NEG]

I'd love to see a mag like Edge to mandatory follow-up reviews after one month. It would be interesting if game score could be modified based on that.

Aye good idea. But do they have enough TIME to go back?

I myself really wouldn't review untill the credits. Besides the extras which I could leave alone if I were a reviewer. But you need to see what the developers intend to then give it a score.

I disliked Goldeneye, Tetris, Wetrix, Street Fighter 2, Mario 64, Super Monkey Ball. All during the first half hour to 3 to 4 hours or so. But then they grow on me. And I end up loving the game. Most recently this would be Metroid Prime. Which was my first game of the Metroid series I played anyway.

EDGE did report on this alot last year. With some reviewer taking 6mins to write a review. In some cases it makes me angry say...NOM gave Puyo 38% and NGC gave SADX a equally low score. You can just tell from the screenshots they hardly played an hours worth. Which is criminal when you consider the amount of people who work on a game for prehaps a couple of years before release only to be looked apon in....6mins?!

Reviewers write what the media and public want to hear, methinks.

[D-Side]

Proves my point: It's 'shit' for hours...

Then shit for hours and hours and hours.

One slight problem: It's not. It's a pretty staggering achievement. One can only imagine that you didn't make a genuine effort in your evaluation.

[JPickford (retired mod)]

One slight problem: It's not. It's a pretty staggering achievement. One can only imagine that you didn't make a genuine effort in your evaluation.

I spent a few hours having no fun with a shoddy, bug-ridded brown mess of a 'game'. At least 2 of those hours where spent on the loading screen.

[D-Side]

I wonder what Bethseda think of Wetrix...