Home
You are most certainly welcome to write a review of Michelangelo's David based only on the sculpture of the feet, but that would not be very representative of the work as a whole. I agree that it is possible that "good, intelligent writers with a critical eye for video games are able to provide thoughtful, valid analysis without completing a game." But, what part of the analysis is lost when the game is not completed? It is not wrong to write a video game review that way, people can write reviews however they want to. But in my opinion, failure to thoroughly vet a game does not provide a critical review that is representative of the whole work.
What would a review look like for Metal Gear Solid 2 if the reviewer based it on only the first few hours of the game? How about a review of Super Mario 3D Land that only played the first 8 worlds? What if a game is amazing during the first half and utterly fails with the follow through in the second half? Other than time (and annoyance), what reason do you have to not complete a game prior to review? Of course, you do not have to complete the game; it is ultimately up to the reviewer to decide when to actually write the review. Personally I appreciate the effort and the perspective."
"I think Final Fantasy XIII is a case where the game should be finished prior to review, however, I do think one could make the argument that a fighting game like Street Fighter IV can never truly be "finished". That is a case though where transparency in what was played is important. Did the reviewer spend a significant amount of time with online multiplayer? Did they finish singleplayer modes? With how many characters? Etc."
I think with cases of "infinite" games the discretion of how much to play prior to writing a review is clearly up to the journalist, and there is no direct answer to how much one should play. In the end, it is up to that reviewer to decide whether they have vetted the game to their satisfaction prior to a review."
But certainly, opinions are subjective, they are not right or wrong. People are free to review games however they want to. In the end the audience will decide whether they want to follow a reviewers works. I personally prefer journalist reviews that don't "walk out" on games they are assigned. Of course they have every right to do that, just as I have every right to not continue to support that journalists reviews with hits. However, I suspect there is a reason most journalists do not disclose how much of a game they played prior to review. If it is not disclosed, I think there is an assumption the reviewer really vetted the game, and if that illusion is shattered the audience may not respond well."
I think 15-30 hours is a bit of an overstatement, unless you are referring to role-playing games, or games where the emphasis is on multiplayer. At that point the question becomes how much playtime is needed to provide a robust review of the multiplayer portion of the game? That is a tough question to answer, and one many outlets appear to struggle with when it comes time to review games that are primarily multiplayer driven or constantly updated over time, such as online role-playing games (e.g., World of Warcraft).
I think Final Fantasy XIII is a case where the game should be finished prior to review, however, I do think one could make the argument that a fighting game like Street Fighter IV can never truly be "finished". That is a case though where transparency in what was played is important. Did the reviewer spend a significant amount of time with online multiplayer? Did they finish singleplayer modes? With how many characters? Etc.
Thanks again for the dialogue though!"
I actually meant that a developer that reads the work of a games journalist is a consumer of that journalists piece, he/she is supporting that journalists product just like any other consumer of that journalists writing.
I agree 100 percent that journalists do not OWE the industry anything, I am not advocating for journalists to be extensions of marketing or give impartial reviews. There is a difference between owing something and doing an artists work a disservice by not giving it a fair representation in critical form. If games are art, are the people that create the games not artists? They are not just an adversarial "industry". If anything, the rush to get reviews ready for deadlines, which result in scores going up on Metacritc, make game reviews part of the marketing.
Also, just as an aside to point out, all of the examples I gave in my article are for games that were actually given positive reviews. None of them were left uncompleted because of broken mechanics or poor gameplay. I suspect pressures to meet deadlines and overall burdens on the journalists’ time were likely the reason the games were not thoroughly vetted prior to the publication of the reviews.
To respond to a few specific comments...
"If you can't get an accurate representation of a 15 hour game in the first 5 hours, that's the fault of the developer, not the reviewer."
Really? So every game should play exactly the same way throughout its entire experience so as not to burden a reviewer? Does that not limit creativity?
"A good game hooks me from the beginning and makes me WANT to keep playing. If I don't want to keep playing, that simple fact should be as telling about the quality of a particular game than anything else. My time, not my money, is my most valuable consumable resource. If a reviewer told me that he spent five hours on a game, couldn't bring himself to continue, and listed out thoughtful reasons why, I would thank him for sparing me the same fate."
I agree, good games are often compelling from the start. But if it is your job to review a game (as in you are making money to do so), I think you should see the game through. Some games do start slow and actually improve. Of course a reviewer should say whether a game is worth the time investment. I am also very thankful when a reviewer whose opinions I generally share explains that a game may not be worth the time.
“Reviews are not objective. The goal is not to be fair from the point of view of the developer. The goal is to recount YOUR personal experiences with the game. If that includes not finishing it, and you present a clear rationale why you didn't, I don't see why that review is any less valid.”
I agree that reviews are subjective, and that the goal of a review is not to placate the developers. I am arguing that not fully vetting a game does a disservice to the creators as well as the consumers. A review is a an account of a personal experience, this is true, but what I am looking for in a journalists review (especially when it is their job to write the review) is more than a simple knee-jerk reaction based on a limited amount of time with a game. However, as I stated in the article, it is much appreciated when a reviewer discloses how much time they have actually spent playing a game prior to review. It is just not that common of a practice for journalists to do that."
"Does playing a crappy, tacked-on multiplayer component (or even a good one) make a crappy game that is primarily focused on single-player any better (or worse)?"
I don't know, but it would be good to find that out in a review. Reviews are opinion based after all, maybe someone would want to try that game out for the stronger quality.
"What about a game like Superman 64 that's so broken that it's almost impossible to finish? "
How many games are released that are actually near impossible to finish because of broken controls or mechanics? If that is actually the case, then it is totally fair to point that out in a review as a reason for failure to thoroughly finish. I am not advocating a total black and white approach as you suggest, merely that games should be thoroughly vetted prior to writing a review. The vast majority of games that are released and are eventually reviewed by games journalists are not broken.
"Most developers know, if they're being honest with themselves, when they release a game that is sub-par. Claiming disrespect because a reviewer doesn't trudge through their 80+ hour crapfest from beginning to end is both dishonest and selfish. Furthermore, how is it disrespectful to a consumer to attempt to prevent them from wasting their time on a bad game?"
I suspect that most developers, the people spending years of their lives making the game, are not trying to create a flaming pile of garbage to unleash on you as a consumer. Are they not deserving of constructive feedback on the game as a whole. I am not advocating they be placated, I am advocating that they deserve some respect for making the game and I am sure they would appreciate a review that is based on a thorough play-through of their game and not just the first two levels of multiplayer, or half the singleplayer campaign.
Thanks for the comments, I appreciate the discussion."
“It’s the Same Damn Thing”
At present, there is very little known about the system specs of the Wii U, therefore I am not entirely sure how you can presume so early that the system itself is uninteresting. Also the article insinuates the Wii U is incapable of utilizing more than one tablet controller at a time. I was under the impression that Nintendo has stated that the Wii U is technically capable of supporting and streaming to multiple tablet controllers, but at present they were unsure if the potential cost of the tablets would limit the appeal of having four of them in a household at a time. The prohibitive cost is a problem, which is why I suspect they are keen to allow for backwards compatibility of previous Wii peripherals also easing the cost of upgrading from the Wii. However, a cost issue is the not the same thing as the system being incapable of using more than one tablet at a time.
The assumption that developers will ignore the Wii U tablet features is also entirely speculative given that we haven’t seen an actual lineup of Wii U games yet. I think this will be better judged once we have a clearer picture of the Wii U launch lineup and upcoming games. Maybe some developers will read Shoe’s article and get some constructive ideas from Bitmobers.
“What Third Party Support”
You seem to be hung up on the exact games shown in the “sizzle” reel, but I think you missed one of the points of the presentation. It’s not about the Wii U getting games that will be year old ports by the time the system launches, it was about demonstrating that Nintendo is serious about promoting more “mature/hardcore” releases from third party developers, and indicating which of those third parties have come aboard. Again, it’s more than a little early to complain about the lack of third party support when we haven’t been given any strong details about upcoming software.
While I agree it would be nice to see some new stuff at Gamescom, it has only been two months since the Wii U debuted in June, and it seems a little early to be signaling the alarm bells that third parties aren’t bringing anything new or interesting to the table. Maybe we should give developers time to work on some quality software rather than rush them to give half-baked presentations that everyone will make knee-jerk reactions about.
“It has no clear purpose”
I have to disagree with this point as well. The take home message I got from the Wii U E3 presentation was that they were trying to put more of the focus back on “U” so to speak; essentially saying the Wii U will be home to both hardcore and casual titles. Whether this is a sound economic strategy, I don’t know. But I do know that I have no problem with a console that has games that appeal to multiple demographics and audiences. The question is, how would the Wii have performed if it had the same graphics capabilities as the PS3 and 360 from the start, making more direct ports possible? I am not sure what the answer to that is, but maybe some of the alienated hardcore gamers would have been more pleased with simply owning a Wii and not going multi-system to enjoy the wider breadth of released games.
In terms of getting “casuals” to upgrade, well that depends on Nintendo’s launch lineup doesn’t it. If they build a killer lineup with a must have title that speaks to “casuals” like Wii Fit or Wii Sports, then they may have a hit on their hands. People get on board with good software (a lesson they are hopefully learning from the 3DS launch), lets see what they come up with first.
Overall, I personally am not compelled to dismiss the Wii U, and I certainly have not made up my mind about whether I will purchase it or not based on the little we know so far. I suspect by at least the end of the next E3 we will all have a much clearer picture of the Wii U. I will reserve purchasing judgment until we all know a lot more about the system and its games, right now it just feels too early for all the negative speculation and sensationalism."
First off:
"Nintendo has a bad habit of introducing neat and potentially amazing concepts and then failing to follow through on them."
Really? Like what for example? You seem to be insinuating that Nintendo doesn't deliver on a number of fronts, but it would be nice to have some concrete opinions or examples rather than vague statements.
"The Wii Virtual Console was a great idea, and I spent hundreds of dollars on many classic games I didn't want to pay collector prices for, but then it simply died. Nintendo rolled out a lot of potential platforms including the Sega Master System and Commodore 64. Still, the marketplace didn't pick up. "
I don't think "died" is exactly the right word. Major releases have certainly slowed to a trickle over the last couple years, but it didn't die out. There are tons of great games from many systems on the virtual console service, and if you are a "retro" console gamer it is hard to argue with the selction. The service itself is additive too with eventual diminishing returns. You can't release Super Mario Bros 3 every week. Are there a lof of console games from years past that I would love to see on the service? Absolutely. Is the service perfect right now? Nope, an account based system where some games could be shared between the 3DS and Wii/Wii U would be ideal. But that doesn't mean the service is dead or lacking quality. Within the last few months a number of great games have been released, including the previouly Japan only Monster World IV.
I think an interesting question to ask is: Why are releases so sporadic? Is Nintendo holding back releases from other developers to pad them out? Are other developers just not submitting their classic games to be used through the system? There is some balance here that has to be met, obviously Nintendo is not going to dump 30 triple AAA titles out in one day, and other developers/publishers most likely do not want their releases crammed in together without any spotlight. I honestly don't know all of the in and outs of how games come through the virtual console pipeline, but it would be interesting to find out!"