Gamergate - OP updated 27 October

[Ryme]

Steam curators are now required to disclose endorsements.

https://archive.today/5Hftw

Brilliant the wins keep on coming.

[icedwarrior]

The first image shows that he only finished 11 out of the 13 chapters for the game, indicating that he did not finish it.

him completing very little of the game for his reviews.

11/13 chapters is "very little"? Of course, I'd prefer him complete the game, but if he discloses how far he got, I have zero problem with it.

[Edge-]

11/13 chapters is "very little"? Of course, I'd prefer him complete the game, but if he discloses how far he got, I have zero problem with it.

That sentence was specifically aimed at BioShock 2 and Madballs, not FFXIII.

Again, I don't see how it's acceptable for a reviewer, someone who is paid to critically review a game, to not complete a game that they are reviewing and post a review.

I would not trust a movie critic who walked out of a movie before it ended. I would not trust a book critic who read only part of the book. I would not trust a TV critic reviewing a season of a show if they only did "most of it".

These people are paid money to review these products, it's literally their job. I can't think of another job off the top of my head where it is remotely acceptable to not complete your work and have that be alright.

[Edge-]

The only case where I would accept that is if the reviewer specifically said, "It was so bad that I simply could not sit through it all."

That at least tells me something. But yes, in almost every other case, I agree with you. The expectation should be to play/watch/etc the entire thing.

I can't take that excuse though. Like, I've done work that was so bad I didn't want to finish it...but I did, because it was my job and I was being paid to do it. Failure to do so would get my ass fired.

Why reviewers somehow have a "free pass" in many peoples eyes when the same is afforded to no other profession I can think of boggles my mind.

[icedwarrior]

That sentence was specifically aimed at BioShock 2 and Madballs, not FFXIII.

Fair enough, I misread that. My bad.

*snip*

Does it invalidate their impressions on what they've played? I (mostly) agree with you, but again, I don't really care for reviews; I might quickly glance at metacritic for a broad idea, and watch a YouTube or two on something, but I can't say that I thought "Hey, TB liked this game. I think I'll spend $60 because he liked it".

[Pann]

I can't take that excuse though. Like, I've done work that was so bad I didn't want to finish it...but I did, because it was my job and I was being paid to do it. Failure to do so would get my ass fired.

Why reviewers somehow have a "free pass" in many peoples eyes when the same is afforded to no other profession I can think of boggles my mind.

They are getting paid to write reviews not play games and more importantly they are getting paid to write them by a certain deadline. A reviewer cannot spend 100+ hours on a game like Skyrim when the review is due next week and as others have pointed out you do not have spend 50 hours to form an opinion that a game is bad. Your assertion that reviewers need to play through each game is not only unreasonable but is completely infeasible and commercially unviable.

[Edge-]

Does it invalidate their impressions on what they've played?

Nope, but it makes the review incomplete. If I'm reading a review, I expect it to be complete (outside of open world games which are almost impossible to "complete"). I don't think that's too much to ask out of someone paid to do this job.

Again, I can't think of another profession where submitting incomplete work is in any way, shape, or form acceptable.

I (mostly) agree with you, but again, I don't really care for reviews; I might quickly glance at metacritic for a broad idea, and watch a YouTube or two on something, but I can't say that I thought "Hey, TB liked this game. I think I'll spend $60 because he liked it".

I don't care for them too much either, at least not individually and even less so from the score angle (though I do like to try to predict review scores for games before reviews post and see how the numbers line up with my predictions). But I will check out the actual written contents of a review, and I would prefer the content to cover (without spoiling, hopefully) the full scope of the game. Sometimes because I'm thinking of purchasing it and want to know a bit more, sometimes simply for my own curiosity.

They are getting paid to write reviews not play games and more importantly they are getting paid to write them by a certain deadline. A reviewer cannot spend 100+ hours on a game like Skyrim when the review is due next week and as others have pointed out you do not have spend 50 hours to form an opinion that a game is bad. Your assertion that reviewers need to play through each game is not only unreasonable but is completely infeasible and commercially unviable.

How about a game like Bayonetta 2? Or Mirror's Edge? Or Dark Souls? Lollipop Chainsaw? Games that aren't designed for 100+ hour play sessions, since you decided to cherry pick one game that fits that bill very well.

I mean, even look at the reviews for DA:I, a game very similar to Skryrim in terms of the scope/scale of the game and the time one can spend in it. Most reviewers put in 30+ hours to their reviews can finished at least the main story of the game. That's not an unreasonable expectation at all, despite the game potentially offering hundreds upon hundreds of hours of content.

Do you know of any other industries where this type of behavior would be deemed acceptable? I'm curious, because the concept seems foreign to me.

[erthwjim]

I'm only gonna make one post in this monster of a thread.

Just to share this: https://medium.com/@adrianchm/women-...s-f0eb7a7d75fa

I'll have more comments later, but this is so much win.

[Beery Swine]

Thanks for clarifying.

Outside of them literally not being able to get passed a certain point, I do expect them to complete the game if they're going to review it. They've not be opposed to sinking 40+ hours into games like DA:I for their reviews, so I expect them to sink less time into other games if that much is neccary to complete it.

Nobody is asking for hundreds of hours spent in an open world game like the aforementioned DA:I or Skyrim or something, but people are expecting at the very least that they complete the main story quests and engage in some of the side activities/quests so that they can speak to the totality of the game.

I'll stick with my Superman 64 example. From what I've seen the tutorial alone is so imprecise and glitchy that most people can't even get thru that. Do you really expect someone to put 40+ hours into a game if the controls are so atrocious that you can't get past the tutorial? I'm not defending Sterling, I'm just saying there can be at the very least extenuating circumstances involving the completion of some games. I remember trying to beat X-men Origins: Wolverine on hard difficulty and couldn't for the longest time because the final boss just glitch-cheats on hard most of the time. Had to keep resetting the game. shit happens sometimes.

[Edge-]

I'll stick with my Superman 64 example. From what I've seen the tutorial alone is so imprecise and glitchy that most people can't even get thru that. Do you really expect someone to put 40+ hours into a game if the controls are so atrocious that you can't get past the tutorial?

Not at all. If there is a literal barrier to progression, be it a bug or a part of the game that is beyond unreasonably difficult, then that's fine. It would be like reviewing a car and not being able to discuss how it handles on the highway as the car you received was unable to make it into 4th gear. That's a problem with the product, not with the reviewer being lazy.

[erthwjim]

They are getting paid to write reviews not play games and more importantly they are getting paid to write them by a certain deadline. A reviewer cannot spend 100+ hours on a game like Skyrim when the review is due next week and as others have pointed out you do not have spend 50 hours to form an opinion that a game is bad. Your assertion that reviewers need to play through each game is not only unreasonable but is completely infeasible and commercially unviable.

Write reviews about games they played, so yeah. But he also said they don't have to complete it 100%, but making it from beginning to end should be something they do if it has a beginning and end. As for deadlines, that can go back to the site they work for, if all games can't be played and reviewed by the deadline, then maybe said site should hire more people or prioritize things better. But they are getting paid to do it, so they should actually finish a game (this does not mean all side quests, achievements, etc just to the point where the credits roll). Edge has a point, but maybe games writers just feel entitled.

[Edge-]

Write reviews about games they played, so yeah. But he also said they don't have to complete it 100%, but making it from beginning to end should be something they do if it has a beginning and end. As for deadlines, that can go back to the site they work for, if all games can't be played and reviewed by the deadline, then maybe said site should hire more people or prioritize things better.

Well, there are things like "We got the review copy 24 hours before release/embargo lifting" which makes it pretty unreasonable to expect a review right at launch/embargo lift.

Then again, they don't actually have to post a review then, either, at least not a scored one.

As we're seeing more often now, specifically with games with big online components, reviewers are holding off on scoring the games until they can play the online components in a live environment (a few sites did this with Battlefield: Hardline, for example).

[blackblade]

So, since when do you have to finish something to know its shit?
I knew Iron Man 3 was shit 30 mins in. I knew Cata was crap, 2 hours in.

When you're trying to provide examples of why it is shit and actually critique it instead of writing:


Kellorion's World of Warcraft: Cataclysm Review
----
Game was shit. 2/10
----

Your readers would want more detail. what parts didn't click with you. what parts threw a red flag? was there anything you like?

[Beery Swine]

Another thing to consider is if the game is just exceptionally difficult. I know I still haven't beaten the (first) final boss in Demon's Crest for SNES. Punk mafugga's hard as fuck. I can't think of any modern examples, but I'll bet there's still some games out there that are Nintendo hard.

[blackblade]

I can't take that excuse though. Like, I've done work that was so bad I didn't want to finish it...but I did, because it was my job and I was being paid to do it. Failure to do so would get my ass fired.

Why reviewers somehow have a "free pass" in many peoples eyes when the same is afforded to no other profession I can think of boggles my mind.

I don't think it's the end of the world that a reviewer doesn't finish the game as long as they did disclose how much of said game they do play, the sort of content they engaged in (Multiplayer, Minigames, Side Quests, Story Progress). Obviously quitting two hours in or not really getting into the meat of the game hurts your ability to give the game due justice in the review, especially in the case of that polygon Project STEAM review.

This is something (get your pitchforks ready) that Kotaku actually discloses pretty well. They always say How long they played, if they completed the game, and the kind of content they explored (did sidequests, 100%, explored, completed story, did multiplayer, etc).

[Edge-]

This is something (get your pitchforks ready) that Kotaku actually discloses pretty well. They always say How long they played, if they completed the game, and the kind of content they explored (did sidequests, 100%, explored, completed story, did multiplayer, etc).

Yup, Kotaku and GameSpot are both pretty great about this.

[Jun]

That is definitely a great policy for reviewing games, ensuring the reader knows how much effort went into the review.

As in interactive medium, you can't automatically judge the sum by the parts alone. If you're eating spinach and kale salad with a zesty sun-dried tomato vinaigrette, and you just eat the kale, it's gonna be bitter and probably unappetizing.
Never mind that the salad as a whole is amazing.

So as a professional reviewer, who lists his/her prestigious title and hangs his/her hat on the site they publish reviews for, you need to be thorough.

Superman 64's aside, most games deserve a fair chance. If they have any pride in their profession, they'll give them that chance.

[draykorinee]

Since you guys seem to love bringing up the meal analogy.

Let`s say a paid professional reviewer went to a restaurant, ordered a nice meal, steak, potatos and some salad.
He only eats the potatos, and write an review on the entire meal from that, would you trust that review?

"but the potatos tasted shit, so the entire meal must be shit!"
"the first hour of a game is shit, so the entire game must be shit"

No, it doesnt work like that, especially for someone who reviews as a job.

That would completely destroy the analogy, which by itself was a terrible analogy on purpose, to show that comparing movies to games its totally asanine. One is an interactive medium the other is not, comparing the 2 as reviewers is a poor attempt to make a point. I would expect a music critic to listen to all songs on an album, I would expect a food critic to eat as much of food as possible, I would expect someone critiquing a holiday destination to have actually been there, different mediums have different needs, comparing them is just...rubbish.

I can agree with what edgy said, nobody expect them to put inn over 100 hours inn open world game, but i surely expect them to atleast finish the main quests/storyline/parts of the game to be able to make a non skewered review.

I have no idea what completing final fantasy 7 would have done for my review, if I had rushed to the end to complete it for a review I would have bypassed most of the best bits about it, I'd rather a reviewer spent X amount of time getting to know a game than have to tick the "completed" box when they expclitly say "I didn't finish this game" and bypassing large swathes of the game to appease the completed brigade.

- - - Updated - - -

So, since when do you have to finish something to know its shit?
I knew Iron Man 3 was shit 30 mins in. I knew Cata was crap, 2 hours in.

Your example is the extremes that people seem to be applying to my view, any reviewr who plays that amount of time and writes a game off is not going to be a reviewer for long.

[Beery Swine]

If you're eating spinach and kale salad with a zesty sun-dried tomato vinaigrette, and you just eat the kale, it's gonna be bitter and probably unappetizing.
Never mind that the salad as a whole is amazing.

This isn't really a fair analogy. A few bites of salad will get you all that the salad has to offer. No one says wine tasters have to finish the entire bottle to judge how the inebriation feels, it'll just be more of the same. A game's gameplay, mechanics and story usually don't change much from hour six to hour sixty and beyond. Final Fantasy X opens with an overly long, boring ass emo bullshit cutscene and just continues to throw me more of the same thruout. Didn't need to play the rest to get the gist (even tho I did)

[Strangebrew]

This isn't really a fair analogy. A few bites of salad will get you all that the salad has to offer. No one says wine tasters have to finish the entire bottle to judge how the inebriation feels, it'll just be more of the same. A game's gameplay, mechanics and story usually don't change much from hour six to hour sixty and beyond. Final Fantasy X opens with an overly long, boring ass emo bullshit cutscene and just continues to throw me more of the same thruout. Didn't need to play the rest to get the gist (even tho I did)

Funny, because FFX`s story develops alot, and that emo bullshit you claim is never seen again.


Also, seeing as FFX is one my all time favorite games, exactly what parts of the opening cutscene is "emo bullshit"?