How long do you play a game before reviewing it (for publication)

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dan Allen on May 31, 2008 at 6:13pm

If I could complete every game I've ever played that would be great but the fact remains that I might never be able to get a full completion of Mario Kart Wii including every unlock. If I were going to write a review for the new Mario Kart I would want to have at least played through every track, played w/ all available characters and karts and played through every game mode. I wouldn't worry about unlocking stuff too much but you need to be familiar w/ the game.

Since I don't get paid to write the third question is hard to answer. The quality of the game determines how long I play. I played the shit out of Assassin's Creed. Word Coach? Not so much. My point is I'm lucky in that the quality of the game determines my time w/ it. And of course those are two different games.

I think the adult gamers know that not all games can be played to completion. When I was younger I thought that anyone who worked for Nintendo Power was some kind of gaming god who could beat any game w/ a blindfold on. We're just normal gamers that happen to be writers as well. I don't think it needs to be spelled out. There's 100s of hours of content in some of these games and those are the ones w/ finite game play.

There is no magic formula for game reviewing. First it's a review, ergo not a comprehensive overview. Second stick to the basics, i.e. gameplay, graphics, story and sound. Writing a review is like mixing a drink, take the four objective elements I just mentioned and mix properly with your subjective experience for a refreshing and invigorating read. Sometimes you get tall drinks from this method (1000 to 3000 words) and sometimes small (300 to 500 words).

Ultimately you want to know as much about your game as possible before you publish a review of it. When I published my EBA story I had beaten the game on the normal difficulty but it turns out there's a bit more to the game than that. In that case simply beating the game wasn't enough for a good review, (my review isn't that good) I needed to beat it two more times oh higher difficulty levels to really see how far the game went.

Every review is different, every game is different, there is no formula to review writing.

Dan Allen
Editor
Amish Otaku

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Brian Rowe on June 11, 2008 at 1:02am

Brian Rowe - Freelance Writer
Primary Publications - GameRevolution.com, GameShark.com

The amount of time that needs to be invested for a proper review depends upon the gameplay mechanics more than anything else. Years ago, Halo 2 hooked me with smooth controls, intense battles, an excellent multiplayer system, and all that good stuff, but the horrible ending soured every experience that came before. It was a good six months before I picked up the rifle again. Had I only played 99.9% of the way through Halo 2, my opinion would have been vastly different. Just because a game begins on a high note does not mean that the developers can maintain that pace through to the end.

In contrast, I have played numerous games that were almost completely devoid of anything resembling a control scheme or artificial intelligence. If enemies are moonwalking off cliffs in the first fifteen minutes, it's reasonable to assume that they'll be doing it fifteen hours later. Reviewing a technically bad game is like pounding a nail through your hand. You don't have to go all the way to know that it hurts. Unfortunately, reviewers still have to endure more pain than the average person will ever know because of particular breed of gamer known as the "fanboy." If you stop at stage 5 and there's a crucial detail in stage 6, you can bet that you'll get called on it.

Time is another factor. When you're handed a game rated at 40+ hours and you only have two days to get the job done, you do the best that you can and leave it at that. It's not the optimal situation, but reviewing games is a business. It doesn't matter if your writing skills make Hemingway look like a talentless hack. If you can't get a review published in a timely fashion, the readers are going to move elsewhere. Gamers have money to spend and they don't want to wait until next week to find out how to spend it.

I don't tell readers when I don't finish a game. I know it might sound shady, but I guarantee that it's standard practice. If every reviewer started listing play-times in reviews, readers would start flocking to whichever publication has the highest completion ratio, as opposed to the most worthwhile opinions. If I only get halfway through the main story of an RPG, while completing as many side-quests and collecting as many characters as possible, but John Doe Reviewer plows straight through to the end, does that make his opinion more valid? Of course not. I will be able to offer more details about the gameplay while he will be able to offer more about the overall story.

Sometimes there is also the matter of personal skill. Regardless of its flaws, I love the PS2 game, God Hand. I poured an obscene amount of time into buying skills, setting up combos, practicing, and even gambling. I know the pros and cons of that game through and through, but that doesn't change the fact that I can't get past one of the later bosses. That is information that I'm willing to divulge. If worded carefully, it stands as a testament to the game's difficulty rather than a condemnation of my abilities.

There are other factors to consider, such as access to final builds of games, how many games need to be covered that week, personal sanity, and online availability. How do you rate online play when there is no one to play against? Regardless of whether or not a game is completed, I strive to provide as thorough of an opinion as possible, which can only happen when I feel I have a handle on the core concepts of the game. Sometimes this happens halfway through. Other times, it means pulling all-nighters to beat the final boss. There is no formula. The important thing is to not fake it. I won't name names, but I have read reviews that I knew were cut-n-paste jobs from previews and other reviews. The words are there, but they feel dispassionately empty, and those are the opinions that no one wants to trust.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Shaun Hinklein on June 23, 2008 at 8:06am

Kyle,

Thought I'd take a stab at this.

In general, it'd be beneficial to complete the game before reviewing it. Obviously there are scenarios where this can't be accomplished due to deadlines and time constraints. When this is the case, specifying the games valued strengths will press through making a decent review. Also, look at the game in context. Are we talking an RPG or an FPS? Think of how the theatrical element plays a part in the foundation of the game--its only fair to their creators.

I can't complete all the games I review. Most recently, I reviewed The World Ends With You and only had time to invest 5 hours into it. Managing the section and perfecting the content of the article is priority one--not finishing the product. Allowing your audience to mutually understand your experience is more important than demonstrating your completion of the game. In some cases, specifically with RPG's, NOT finishing the game might prove helpful as that "cliff-hanging" feel can greatly help an article.

Economics have nothing to do with it. Treat each game fairly and with adequate care. Yes, it is tough to control those 'fan-boy' moments, but the key aspect here is journalistic integrity. In this fundamental concept of being any type of journalist, economics are not a factor at all. It is crucial that your values of a journalist prevail through any type of PR-Spin Doctor or Paid Review.

The people that read Video Game Reviews don't always have to enjoy video-games. We've got the ESRB, Parents Who Play, and the FCC just to name a few. As far as gamers addressing reviews, they're reading them for the authors' take on the title blended with the game's appeal. Completing it isn't required--Just a damn good job at describing your experiences, your opinions, and the complexities that generate a good review.

Hope this helps. If you'd like anything else I'd be happy to help.

-Shaun Hinklein
shaunhinklein@gmail.com

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Christina "Faith" Winterburn on June 24, 2008 at 6:44am

I'm a game reviewer in hobby only, so I only have my free time to play games for review which doesn't let much time to play games through to completion before I write my review. I usually base my time before reviewing a game on the game itself.

For example, I can play Speed Racer for 3 days and get a good idea how good or bad the game is because all there is too the game is just basic racing. No online, no side quests, etc., but a game like Metal Gear Solid 4 is going to take me 2 or 3 weeks of playing before I would review it.

If I wrote reviews professionally I would play every game to completion before I reviewed it, just to be fair, but since I don't have that option, I just base play till I feel I have a good feel for all the game has to offer and review based on that.

▶ Reply to This