| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (17)

Posted: May 28th 2008 9:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
okk
Reply

Posted: May 28th 2008 11:45PM BananaBoat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Does anyone else find it hilarious that Denis "Delay" Dyack would be up in arms over people reviewing (or in his case...previewing...for eternity) games before they are finished? Perhaps someone is sore from the past year+ of bad previews for Too Human?

The "Bill of Rights" for reviewers is good in theory..but the damn thing itself says that it's not possible with the way development and magazine deadlines go. In other news, MTV Multiplayer was later viewed tilting at windmills.
Reply

Posted: May 28th 2008 9:46PM NO DOUBT GET LOUD said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
We should know if the reviewer beat the game to completion.
Reply

Posted: May 28th 2008 9:58PM psychoticdream said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
yes we do.. but we will never see that implemented since everyone wants to be "first" to have an "exclusive review"
Reply

Posted: May 29th 2008 1:19AM Geist said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This isn't always possible, nor is it necessary in many cases. I don't want to have to power through 40+ hours of Persona 3 to review it, nor is it necessary to see that it's a good game.
Reply

Posted: May 29th 2008 1:25AM NO DOUBT GET LOUD said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
We should still know at least how far they got into the game.
Reply

Posted: May 28th 2008 10:02PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I understand that these guys are fighting for marketshare and advertising dollars but if they were really concerned about reviewing the final product they could simply delay their reviews until they get a final copy and finish the game. Of course that would mean missing out on 'ROLL UP, ROLL UP, FIRST EXCLUSIVE 10/10, GET YOUR HYPE HERE FOLKS!'

(Now I realise that's likely the fault of the company these guys work for rather than the individuals, but y'see what I'm getting at)
Reply

Posted: May 28th 2008 10:05PM Deck said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think the problem is that they don't have enough time to review a game. They have what.. maybe 1 week to review a high profile release? While maybe juggling one or two other games as well.

Take GTAIV or Mass Effect... I don't think either of those games can be correctly summed up in just 1 week of play time. You need multiple weeks to really experience the true game, in all of its glory and all of its bad. Though, that'll never happen. I just think too much is smashed into a small period.
Reply

Posted: May 28th 2008 10:35PM Premature ejaculation man said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That's also why people say Assasin's creed got panned...

But man mass effect is awesome =)
Reply

Posted: May 29th 2008 1:22AM Geist said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't think you do, for either of those games, because everything that the game offers you (gameplay-wise, not story-wise) is available to you immediately. Dialogue in Mass Effect does not change it's mechanic, nor does driving and whatnot in GTA4. Now, playing it to make sure it doesn't do this, and that things in the game don't get dull or stale is important, but if you're a professional game reviewer (ie have no other career obligations), it should not take that long to experience what a game has to offer.
Reply

Posted: May 29th 2008 12:13PM easo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Geist
I have to disagree with you. For some games, I can see not finishing to write a review on them. Racers, fighters, RTS , and sports games are all genres that I wouldnt mind the reviewer playing for an afternoon and pumping out the review in the evening. But for RPGs, fps, and action/adventure games, I would like for the reviewer to complete at least 75% of the game before passing judgement on it. The only exceptions should be for games that are fundamentally flawed. Meaning that something is wrong with the holy trinity of gaming: controls, gameplay,and technical presentation.

If you only review the first half of a game, then games like DMC4 score higher than they desirve. How the hell does DMC4, which requires the player to backtrack through THE ENTIRE GAME, get rated above a 9? Did they only play through half of the game before writing a review, who knows.
So with that said, I agree with Jhongerkong and Deck. Reviewers should play all of the game before they write the review, or at least let us know what percentage they were able to complete.
Reply

Posted: May 28th 2008 10:10PM Anticrawl said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oh my god! Jeff Gerstmann escaped internet prison! Quick someone call the internet police!

*grabs shovel*

I'm going Gerstmann hunting.
Reply

Posted: May 28th 2008 10:16PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Game Reviewer's Bill of Rights? They play games, and then tell people about them. How about they start by going off and F*&king themselves.
Reply

Posted: May 28th 2008 10:18PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Lol, bill of rights? There's only one rule...beat the competition to the review. Ready, Set....GO!


Reply

Posted: May 29th 2008 1:29AM Geist said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
In my spare time, I review games for a website that's not top billing, but is the top gaming website in Canada, and I find most of these things pretty obvious. There's a company I won't name that is somewhat notorious for sending out nothing but sleeved CDs with the name of the game printed on it. Hell, recently I got a game that was on a DVD-R, with my name and the game's name written on in Sharpie. I mean, come on. It was a damned good thing my roommate owns a modded PS2, because it wouldn't work on mine.
Reply

Posted: May 29th 2008 8:56AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What reviewers should do, when told that their copy will not reflect the final product, is to review what they have. Score the game based on what they have. If a particular feature doesn't work well, or the load times are a bit high, review it and mark them down for it.

A few bad scores later, and game companies will stop sending you "review" versions that are different than the release.

At least give two scores, one that is based on what you got, and one that is based on what it is "supposed" to be like.
Reply

Posted: May 29th 2008 1:44PM Tez said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Or the reviewer can just disclose how far they got in the game and whether or not it was a retail copy.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

WRUP: All the Reckoning

Posted on Feb 10th 2012 11:45PM

Xbox Live Indie Gems: Nyan Cat Adventure

Posted on Feb 10th 2012 10:15PM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW