Should game reviewers have to play through the entire game?

[Realist Peter Pan]

This occurred to me while I was watching an old Total Biscuit review on Spec Ops:The Line, and he made a comment that, in my opinion would be completely different if he had played the entire game through. I understand some games don't really need a 100% completion to understand the underlying purpose; some games are just face value, and that's it. I'm curious though if heavy story based games, and certain games that rely on you completing it to get the full experience intended by the developer. Then why do some reviewers judge games based at their face value, when as a reviewer they should full well know that some games require you to play through it all to have an honest opinion on it. 

 

Examples:

https://archive.is/ZkLxI

[Aytex]

should game reviewers get paid is the real question.

[Lolzious]

Nah. I do think, however, that game reviewers should have some experience in game development.

[Lolzious]

should game reviewers get paid is the real question.

They are not much different from movie reviewers, music reviewers, car reviewers, or any reviewer, really.

[mr195]

They should have to play through the game in its entirety if they plan to review it. But if they're doing like a first impression kind if thing then no.

[Jerakl]

OP, Total Biscuit is not a game "reviewer". He does first impressions. There's a big difference.

[Gale]

Most of the time, yes. An exception, for example, would be games that don't rely on story; or games that are lobby/multiplayer based.

 

Regardless, TotalBiscuit is not a reviewer.

[Realist Peter Pan]

Most of the time, yes. An exception, for example, would be games that don't rely on story; or games that are lobby/multiplayer based.

 

Regardless, TotalBiscuit is not a reviewer.

re·view·er

rəˈvyo͞oər/

noun

 

1. a person who writes critical appraisals of books, plays, movies, etc., for publication.

   synonyms: critic, commentator, judge, observer, pundit, analyst

   "a restaurant reviewer for the local paper"

   • a person who formally assesses or examines something with a view to changing it if necessary.

     "a rent reviewer"

 

 

In this definition I would say he is considered a reviewer even if he declares 'some' of his videos to be "first impressions". His "WTF is" series, for example I would say is indicative of a review, since he goes over everything from options, hardware specs capability, in depth game mechanics, and minor story elements. 

[Snadzies]

Single player:

If the game is less than 20 hours they should play all of it.

20 - 40 hours and they should play through the main story minimum and some side content.

Over 40 hours I leave it to the discretion of the reviewer.

 

Multi player:

10 hours on public servers over 2 days.

 

Free to play:

Until they are board.

[dalekphalm]

This occurred to me while I was watching an old Total Biscuit review on Spec Ops:The Line, and he made a comment that, in my opinion would be completely different if he had played the entire game through. I understand some games don't really need a 100% completion to understand the underlying purpose; some games are just face value, and that's it. I'm curious though if heavy story based games, and certain games that rely on you completing it to get the full experience intended by the developer. Then why do some reviewers judge games based at their face value, when as a reviewer they should full well know that some games require you to play through it all to have an honest opinion on it. 

 

Examples:

https://archive.is/ZkLxI

An important distinction to make is that TotalBiscuit identifies his videos as "First Impressions" videos.

 

No, it's not crucial that a reviewer finish the game - depending on the type of review.

 

In TotalBiscuit's case, the whole point is that a game has to be good enough to even get to the end. The ending of a game might be fucking amazing, but if the beginning and middle of it is complete shit, then most gamers will never see that ending anyway.

 

He always plays through the first couple hours at minimum, just to make sure he gets past the "tutorial" parts of a game, or in case the very beginning is quite slow or uninteresting, but it picks up quickly.

[Nexxus]

 

re·view·er

rəˈvyo͞oər/

noun

 

1. a person who writes critical appraisals of books, plays, movies, etc., for publication.

   synonyms: critic, commentator, judge, observer, pundit, analyst

   "a restaurant reviewer for the local paper"

   • a person who formally assesses or examines something with a view to changing it if necessary.

     "a rent reviewer"

 

 

In this definition I would say he is considered a reviewer even if he declares 'some' of his videos to be "first impressions". His "WTF is" series, for example I would say is indicative of a review, since he goes over everything from options, hardware specs capability, in depth game mechanics, and minor story elements. 

 

TB has ALWAYS said his wtfs are 1st impressions and NOTHING else and he frequently says you should look at other sources on top of his to get a better idea of what a game is.

[Realist Peter Pan]

TB has ALWAYS said his serious are 1st impressions and NOTHING else and he frequently says you should look at other sources on top of his to get a better idea of what a game is.

I understand they are first impressions, I'm just making a point that they would still be considered a review, even if it is an impressions, since he is giving an opinion of what was experienced; this still qualifies as a 'review' in my eyes. 

[Realist Peter Pan]

Single player:

If the game is less than 20 hours they should play all of it.

20 - 40 hours and they should play through the main story minimum and some side content.

Over 40 hours I leave it to the discretion of the reviewer.

 

Multi player:

10 hours on public servers over 2 days.

 

Free to play:

Until they are board.

I think it is most definitely a hard thing to quantify in a sense of when a game should be completed; you pretty much hit the nail on the head in relation to what I was thinking of though. 

[someuser]

Usually no!

But depends of kind of gamer are you. Gamers like Totalbiscuit care more about game mechanics... so... there is no need to complete the game to understand and have a good idea of the game.
If you are a player that cares more about the history, then... maybe it is a good idea to find reviewers that play through the entire game.

I'm more on the first case, thats why I like TB reviews.... and I don't really care if he complete the game or not.

[typographie]

This occurred to me while I was watching an old Total Biscuit review on Spec Ops:The Line, and he made a comment that, in my opinion would be completely different if he had played the entire game through. I understand some games don't really need a 100% completion to understand the underlying purpose; some games are just face value, and that's it. I'm curious though if heavy story based games, and certain games that rely on you completing it to get the full experience intended by the developer. Then why do some reviewers judge games based at their face value, when as a reviewer they should full well know that some games require you to play through it all to have an honest opinion on it.

 

As long as the reviewer discloses the scope of their review and (ideally) addresses what may work differently by the end of the game, I am completely comfortable with it. Regardless, no matter how complete a review is, it's wise to consult multiple points of view before purchasing anyway.

 

For his part, Totalbiscuit doesn't call his critiques "reviews." He is very clear that the goal of his "WTF is…" series is his first impressions, not necessarily an assessment of the complete game. In all of his videos I've ever seen, he has been upfront how much of the game he played.

[sqwidee]

This occurred to me while I was watching an old Total Biscuit review on Spec Ops:The Line, and he made a comment that, in my opinion would be completely different if he had played the entire game through. I understand some games don't really need a 100% completion to understand the underlying purpose; some games are just face value, and that's it. I'm curious though if heavy story based games, and certain games that rely on you completing it to get the full experience intended by the developer. Then why do some reviewers judge games based at their face value, when as a reviewer they should full well know that some games require you to play through it all to have an honest opinion on it. 

 

Examples:

https://archive.is/ZkLxI

 

I think if a reviewer has negative impressions when they're only part-way through the game, then it's probably an indicator that the game has actual problems. Just because one's opinion of the story may change if they sink 20 more hours into a game still doesn't excuse the fact that the first 20 hours of story sucked, imo. The entire game should feel engaging and seamless. If I need to play to the end of the game in order to be convinced that the rest of the crap in between wasn't as boring as I thought at first, it's still a design flaw.

[Th3 Mans1ay3r]

I'd say long enough for these things to have long worn off

• Release hype
• New game syndrome
• The opposite of the previous 2
• The multiplayer if the game has it

I can easily play 25% of the way through many games and review a lot of the aspects of it.

[ThePkSloth]

I don't think you should have to play a game through to review it. At the end of the day, if the consumer doesn't enjoy the product for lets say the first 5 hours they're unlikely to continue. They shouldn't have to complete the game to get their first bit of enjoyment out of it.

 

Furthermore, as long as you're not taking a random guys opinion into account and it is a person you trust and you know shares opinions about aspects of games as you, you can't really go wrong. For example Totalbiscuit has said several times he holds gameplay mechanics a lot higher in his scoring system then he does story elements. You should take this sort of bias into consideration (and whether you agree with it) before you take a review into account.

[theereal]

This occurred to me while I was watching an old Total Biscuit review on Spec Ops:The Line, and he made a comment that, in my opinion would be completely different if he had played the entire game through. I understand some games don't really need a 100% completion to understand the underlying purpose; some games are just face value, and that's it. I'm curious though if heavy story based games, and certain games that rely on you completing it to get the full experience intended by the developer. Then why do some reviewers judge games based at their face value, when as a reviewer they should full well know that some games require you to play through it all to have an honest opinion on it. 

 

Examples:

https://archive.is/ZkLxI

You cant have people doing reviews, they will always count their own opinions into it, i could never be a game reviewer cause i would skyrocket the games i liked into the air and trashed the games i didnt like, kinda like other game reviewers

[GoldSrc]

I guess you could say that they should review games once they payed enough.

For online games you don't need to play that much to get an idea of what it has to offer.

Single player games should be played on their entirety if you want a great review.

Just playing half-way through the story isn't going to work, what if the game is fun half of the way and then turns into a mess for the rest of the game?, or the other way around?

 

"First impressions" are not a review.

[dalekphalm]

I guess you could say that they should review games once they payed enough.

For online games you don't need to play that much to get an idea of what it has to offer.

Single player games should be played on their entirety if you want a great review.

Just playing half-way through the story isn't going to work, what if the game is fun half of the way and then turns into a mess for the rest of the game?, or the other way around?

 

"First impressions" are not a review.

Well that`s why reviewers should always indicate how much of the game they`ve played in the review.

 

First Impressions are not a traditional review. They are a review of sorts though. But it`s important to take a well rounded group of reviews to determine whether you`d like to buy a game or not.

 

TotalBiscuit`s WTF Is videos, for example, focus more on Gameplay elements, but he does touch on Story. His view on the matter is that he usually doesn`t play a game through, unless it`s relatively short. Some Single Player games - especially RPG`s, can easily have 40-200 hours worth of story content. It`s not reasonable for him to spend that much time playing the game.

 

He usually only finishes long games like that if they are just SO FUCKING GOOD that he can`t stop playing it.

 

You can easily tell how enjoyable a game is going to be by only playing it halfway through.

 

For example: If the ending of a game sucks - yeah that does suck, but does that take away from the enjoyment you already had for the rest?

 

Conversely, if the ending of a game is awesome, but the rest of it is total bullshit or really mediocre, then most gamers will never see the ending anyway. The beginning and end of a single player story focused game are by far the most important parts, since if the middle or beginning sucks, you won't want to find out if the ending is good.

 

Granted, it's always better if a reviewer can play the whole thing, but it's not always practical. Angry Joe usually finishes the entire game, but his reviews take a lot longer to make compared to TB. That's why I watch both when they review the same game.

[GoldSrc]

You can easily tell how enjoyable a game is going to be by only playing it halfway through.

 

For example: If the ending of a game sucks - yeah that does suck, but does that take away from the enjoyment you already had for the rest?

 

Conversely, if the ending of a game is awesome, but the rest of it is total bullshit or really mediocre, then most gamers will never see the ending anyway. The beginning and end of a single player story focused game are by far the most important parts, since if the middle or beginning sucks, you won't want to find out if the ending is good.

 

Granted, it's always better if a reviewer can play the whole thing, but it's not always practical. Angry Joe usually finishes the entire game, but his reviews take a lot longer to make compared to TB. That's why I watch both when they review the same game.

 

That's true, I could understand if a game takes really long to finish.

I do watch both TB and AJ to get an idea if a game is good or not, then I usually jump over Steam to read some "reviews" or just for the lulz.

[dalekphalm]

That's true, I could understand if a game takes really long to finish.

I do watch both TB and AJ to get an idea if a game is good or not, then I usually jump over Steam to read some "reviews" or just for the lulz.

Indeed, it's not a black and white situation.

 

Can we really expect a reviewer like TB to literally spend a week or more doing nothing but playing one single game? To the detriment of all other games released in the same time period?

[GoldSrc]

Can we really expect a reviewer like TB to literally spend a week or more doing nothing but playing one single game? To the detriment of all other games released in the same time period?

Nah, TB is good as it is, I wouldn't want him to wait that long to watch any of his videos.

[dalekphalm]

Nah, TB is good as it is, I wouldn't want him to wait that long to watch any of his videos.

Indeed. For those reviewers who can afford to spend the necessary time to fully complete a story, then fuck yeah, go for it. But it shouldn't be some universal thing.