Giving up: should reviewers suffer through bad games?

Comments

• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  CG-Prophet

  10/22/2009 8:30:52 PM

  
  
  @Andy Bates:
  That's a good point. I think it goes both ways - a good game can turn out to be a stinker in the second half or at least not offer a sustainable experience, which I honestly want to know about. and I fully endorse Games For Lunch. It's a great first look at games and it’s usually an indicator of how bad game is going to be when the full review rolls out..
  
  
  
  @Matt Coughlan:
  
  I agree that entertainment goes a long way as does being honest. If the reviewer is not finishing a game and at least tells me, he helps me understand why I should avoid the game in question as well.
  
  @Mechwarrior 2:
  That's a fair statement. If the first half of the game sucks then the rest of it probably sucks too. What i'm talking about is a writer not even getting to that point.
  
  @Catastrophic1:
  
  Take your comment thread derailment BS elsewhere pal, we're actually having a real discussion here.
  
  
  

  Reply »
• 
  Matt Coughlan

  10/22/2009 7:56:47 PM

  As long as reviewers can fulfill one of these two criteria in a review, I don't care what they do:
  
  1) Be accurate. Meaning play the game for as long as it takes to write a fair and balanced assessment.
  
  2) Be entertaining. Meaning write about how you spat on the cover, fried the disc in your microwave, and wrote the review stoned while hugging a monkey.
  
  What I don't want is something that fails to succeed on both counts. I like Crispy Gamer because the writers often fall into the second category, and thus I don't need them to slave away at the first so they can polish their precise yet bland take on every middling detail in a game.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  Catastrophic1

  10/22/2009 7:28:05 PM

  So that's what ScottJones did for Borderlands! I knew it!

  Reply »
• 
  Mechwarrior 2

  10/22/2009 6:45:39 PM

  If a game reviewer has completed 1/4 or 1/2 of a game and found it to be utterly terrible up to that point, it's a pretty safe bet that I, as a person who plays games for entertainment rather than employment, would have given up long before that point anyway. Especially if the game has dull, repetitive mechanics or massive glitch issues that interfere with gameplay.

  Reply »
• 
  Andy Bates

  10/22/2009 5:26:04 PM

  Here’s a related question: What about a game that is really good? Have you ever (or would you) post a review before you finished the game, because you’ve gotten enough of an idea of how it is?
  
  For example, I would hate to have to review Grand Theft Auto IV, because the reviewer would have to pound through the storyline, ignore the side missions, and basically rush through the entire thing just to get a review done in a reasonable amount of time. And in the end, it could be argued that their experience is somewhat dissimilar to someone who completes the game at a leisurely pace.
  
  I would like to see something more along the lines of Games for Lunch (plug plug): You play a game for a while (maybe not just an hour, but for a while), get a significant amount of the game under your belt, and say, “This is how far I got, and here’s what I see as the good and bad about the game.” Honest, straightforward, and perhaps more timely than a review of the full game two weeks later.
  
  

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  CG-Prophet

  10/22/2009 12:52:07 AM

  @KingArmery:
  
  Interesting thought. Perhaps a little more disclosure is in order if you're going to be / are forced to be / a quitter.
  And to be fair if a game is so broken that it is unplayable then that is a whole other area of discussion.
  
  I think a lot of this happens because people are assigned games they have no business reviewing too.
  

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  KingArmery

  10/22/2009 12:24:41 AM

  For the very rare occasions that a game is so terrible you cannot complete it without banging your head repeatedly against a wall (an example of this is the game "Vampire Rain"), then you should not be obliged to finish it. But, like DoctorJest said, you would have to say that you didn't finish it at the beginning of your review.

  Reply »
• 
  DoctorJest

  10/22/2009 12:05:08 AM

  I'm not sure they should; much as Moromete said, I think if the game is bad enough to make the reviewer want to stop, then they should; it happens rarely enough with film reviewers too, after all - and their experiences are capped at only a few hours, maximum.
  
  I do think they should say so in their review, though: if your mental defence mechanisms force you to pull the game disc out and feed it into your document shredder after six straight hours of racing Big Rigs, for example, then you should just say that when writing the review; start with it, so that people know that the review is colored by that fact.
  
  After all, if a game is written so badly that getting further into it is actually a painful experience, then it's the game-maker's fault, not the reviewer's.

  Reply »
• 
  DiTrent

  10/21/2009 11:39:24 PM

  I can't help but find it a little tacky that anyone would write a review based on a game they have not finished. How pissed off would you be if you found out that the movie review you were reading was written by someone who had slipped out halfway through the flick? Or that a book reviewer had only read to chapter 12?
  
  Should a reviewer suffer through an awful game, book or movie in order to present an honest and thorough review? YES! Please be kind and fair to your loyal readers. Don't half ass the job.
  
  James Fudge and Scott Jones - you do us proud. Embrace your OCD and "get er done"

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  CG-Prophet

  10/21/2009 11:36:40 AM

  @JasonMcMaster:
  
  Okay 20 hours is fine, but let's say you played 4 hours in a game that has 30 or 40 hours of content?
  

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  KyleOrland

  10/21/2009 11:32:46 AM

  @Raiksha: @w1ndst0rm:
  
  I think RPGs and games where the story plays an outsize role are special cases, where you have to see them through to the end just to know what happens.
  
  Of course, this wouldn't be as much of an issue if the story were unlocked from the beginning (yay for self-promotional links to recent and relevant content!)

  Reply »
• 
  ScottJones

  10/21/2009 11:26:37 AM

  I think you have to be a masochist to finish most games. As the great poet Maya Angelou once said, "95-percent of all games blow."
  
  True that.
  
  That said, thanks to my OCD, I finish games. I hate NOT finishing games for some reason.
  
  Becasue I do what the voices in my head tell me to do.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  w1ndst0rm

  10/21/2009 11:12:08 AM

  @Raiksha:
  
  Citing Xenogears is unfair, a low blow. It totally proves your point. I'm going to have to think some more.

  Reply »
• 
  Raiksha

  10/21/2009 11:06:28 AM

  As a former (unpaid) game reviewer, it was always important for me to make sure I finished whatever game I was reviewing to get as complete a picture of the product as I can. I kind of expect reviewers to do the same, especially those that are paid to do so. A bad game? Finish it. Everyone has bad days at work, so why should game reviewers be the only ones to get out of them? It just comes with the job.
  
  And yes, there is usually a point where opinion doesn't seem like it will change anymore, but I have actually had my opinion change with endgame content. Imagine if I had reviewed Xenogears at the end of disk 1 and just assumed it was all gonna stay the same after that? Sadly, it doesn't. Or if I had given up on Dragoneer's Aria, a game that got more enjoyable in the second half of the game? If I had stopped Lunar: Eternal Blue halfway through, would I have been able to rave about the awesomeness of the post game Epilogue?
  
  Sure mechanics tend to stay the same, but there is always room for the new skill that completely alters the game experience. I still prefer to read reviews based on complete explorations of a game's content, or at the very least, an explanation of when and why a reviewer gave up.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  KyleOrland

  10/21/2009 10:38:55 AM

  @ScottJones:
  
  If only Crispy Gamer would agree to my request to place my entire published works in their archives, I wouldn't have to link out to other sites so often!

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  JasonMcMaster

  10/21/2009 10:36:15 AM

  Yeah, this is a sticky subject to people but the truth is very clear - shitty games don't stop being shitty after 20 hours.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  w1ndst0rm

  10/21/2009 10:35:41 AM

  As long as you tell us that you quit because it sucked or should have quit because it sucked and why we can form our own opinions.
  
  Not completing a game men and women poured their hearts into can be a fair and honest critique.

  Reply »
• 
  ScottJones

  10/21/2009 10:29:07 AM

  KYLE STOP REDIRECTING EVERYONE TO YOUR MUSTY OLD COLUMNS FOR OTHER SITES.
  
  THAT IS AN ORDER!
  
  No hug for you.
  
  And "Kieron Gillen" sounds like a made-up name.
  
  STOP MAKING UP NAMES.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  KyleOrland

  10/21/2009 8:54:15 AM

  I did a column on this topic last year over at Gamespot
  
  My favorite perspective in the piece is the one I led off with, and the one I use as my own personal rule: "When you reach a point where you know there's nothing that a game can do to change your buying recommendation, I'd argue it's fair to mark it from there," says freelancer Kieron Gillen.

  Reply »
• 
  moromete

  10/21/2009 8:07:58 AM

  As long as someone who has the experience of crappy games and is paid to review something cannot go on and as long as a significant enough section of the game has been seen to get a real grip on the mechanics and the overall atmosphere I think it's safe to say that the reviewer has done his job and can safely stop...

  Reply »

Want a new look on the discussion?
» Take It to the Forums

Leave a Comment