Support NeoGAF

[cakely]

Reviewing the reviewers is a futile endeavor.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

So you are ok with movie reviewers only watching the first 5 minutes of a movie, or book reviewers only reading 100 pages of a 1000 page book, but still reviewing it.

But they're not playing 5 mins, that's literally what I said. Also, comparing a movie which is an insanely compact experience vs. a game is really stupid.

 

[Exentryk]

I think it depends. 65 hours of Skyrim or Witcher 3, 10 hours of playthroughs of a roguelike without actually reaching the end, etc., I don't think it's necessary to complete games like that. One can form valid impression of gameplay, polish, and so on without finishing

Short games, very narrative focused games (ie Inside, Papers Please, Walking Dead, Last of Us, and so on), should be finished.

No. As a professional reviewer, you must see the whole product before review. The time it takes for reviews is some arbitrary number and you can't say 10 hour is okay, but 30 hours is not.

 

[mike6467]

No. That's bullshit. If he played Nier for 20 hours, saw the credits, and overall didn't reply like the game he's justified in giving it the score he sees fit. He's not obligated to play another 40 hours to stave off metacritic nerd rage.

Yeah, this is my view. He played 18 hours and saw credits roll? That's not enough? How many other games should be reviewed post credits? Can we get a Yakuza 0 review dropped because someone didn't go through the Premium Adventure Mode (it offers expanded gameplay options!)

"This game isn't like that" isn't a valid criticism. Credits = completion, especially after 15+ hours. I say this as someone who's super pumped about Nier on PC and roughly 20 hours into Horizon.

Or maybe I don't care about the Metacritic score, and think the obsession surrounding it is ridiculous at best and toxic at worst.

 

[More_Badass]

I find it hard to escape this point. It's not the readers fault a game is long. I'd never read a book review of 1/3 of a book or 1/3 of a movie. I can't see why that would be acceptable anywhere else including games

Games aren't books or movies. 1/3 of games basically presents you with the overall game in a nutshell. Games usually just expand on that core element introduced in the beginning of the game. Like if you play the first third of Bulletstorm, the last third isn't going to be that different outside of more weapons, enemy types, and locations. The foundation hasn't changed. This is true for 99% of games, they tend have a cyclic design, following a specific cycle that is tweaked or expanded in certain ways throughout.

It's akin to the difference between reviewing a procedural TV show and reviewing a movie

 

[True Fire]

Yeah, this is my view. He played 18 hours and saw credits roll? That's not enough? How many other games should be reviewed post credits? Can we get a Yakuza 0 review droped because someone didn't go through the Premium Adventure Mode (it offers expanded gameplay options!)

"This game isn't like that" isn't a valid criticism. Credits = completion, especially after 15+ hours. I say this as someone who's super pumped about Nier on PC and roughly 20 hours into Horizon.

Or maybe I don't care about the Metacritic score, and think the obsession surrounding it is ridiculous at best and toxic at worst.

Credits = completion simply isn't true for Yoko Taro games. You can get credits after 5 minutes if you suck.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Yeah, this is my view. He played 18 hours and saw credits roll? That's not enough? How many other games should be reviewed post credits? Can we get a Yakuza 0 review droped because someone didn't go through the Premium Adventure Mode (it offers expanded gameplay options!)

"This game isn't like that" isn't a valid criticism. Credits = completion, especially after 15+ hours. I say this as someone who's super pumped about Nier on PC and roughly 20 hours into Horizon.

Or maybe I don't care about the Metacritic score, and think the obsession surrounding it is ridiculous at best and toxic at worst.

If you feel this way you should skip Nier.

 

[ponpo]

'Saw the credits' is meaningless when the game is only 1/3 over. If I played a game by just running the credits from the main menu could I give it a 1/10? He literally only played 1/3 of the game. The credits have nothing to do with it

Such a whacky and avant garde use of fake out credits could only come from mastermind Yoko Taro. In that case, the game's score objectively and should be a 90.

 

[KHarvey16]

But they're not playing 5 mins, that's literally what I said. Also, comparing a movie which is an insanely compact experience vs. a game is really stupid.

And of course lacks any interaction, by which a game can be judged for almost exclusively. If a game controls terribly and a person can't get past that, the story or what happens 12 hours in means nothing.

 

[guybrushfreeman]

Yeah, this is my view. He played 18 hours and saw credits roll? That's not enough? How many other games should be reviewed post credits? Can we get a Yakuza 0 review dropped because someone didn't go through the Premium Adventure Mode (it offers expanded gameplay options!)

"This game isn't like that" isn't a valid criticism. Credits = completion, especially after 15+ hours. I say this as someone who's super pumped about Nier on PC and roughly 20 hours into Horizon.

Or maybe I don't care about the Metacritic score, and think the obsession surrounding it is ridiculous at best and toxic at worst.

You can make the credits roll within the first 10 seconds of this game. Would that be an acceptable review to you?

 

[PKrockin]

If someone isn't enjoying a game 18 hours in, then I don't think slogging to the finish is going to change their opinion.

Not always. Ever17 was average to boring for the first 20 hours or so but the last 5 hours were fucking mindblowing. Glad I listened to the people telling me to keep playing to the true ending.

 

[Moneal]

But they're not playing 5 mins, that's literally what I said. Also, comparing a movie which is an insanely compact experience vs. a game is really stupid.

A review is a review. They know going in that they are reviewing something that takes longer to finish than a movie. If they can't be bothered to take the time, maybe they should just review something that takes less time.

 

[More_Badass]

This is a good example

If a book reviewer read half a goddamn book or less and put out a review, I'd never trust said person's reviews from that point onward.

If a movie critic watched half a movie and put out a review, I'd never trust any review from them from that point on.

People do not go to reviews of products/films they're interested in for half-assed impressions. Relying on the reviewer's feeling that they'd seen enough of a product to pass judgment on is incredibly foolish, and a recipe for buyer's remorse from those who do trust said person.

Roger Ebert:

"Caligula" is sickening, utterly worthless, shameful trash. If it is not the worst film I have ever seen, that makes it all the more shameful: People with talent allowed themselves to participate in this travesty. Disgusted and unspeakably depressed, I walked out of the film after two hours of its 170-minute length.

He's done this with about 5 or 6 films throughout his career.

If a reviewer hates something, they're perfectly within their rights not to get all the way through it. Granted, they're not very professional if they do this all the time, but in games above most other media, it's completely possible to form an opinion without exhausting all of the content. There is a tipping point beyond which nothing will redeem what you have already gone through, and if that becomes the case, there is no need to go on.

 

[mike6467]

You can make the credits roll within the first 10 seconds of this game. Would that be an acceptable review to you?

He didn't though, he didn't play 10 minutes and he didn't play 30 seconds. He spent a significant amount of time with it.

 

[Dio]

Yeah, this is my view. He played 18 hours and saw credits roll? That's not enough? How many other games should be reviewed post credits? Can we get a Yakuza 0 review dropped because someone didn't go through the Premium Adventure Mode (it offers expanded gameplay options!)

"This game isn't like that" isn't a valid criticism. Credits = completion, especially after 15+ hours. I say this as someone who's super pumped about Nier on PC and roughly 20 hours into Horizon.

Or maybe I don't care about the Metacritic score, and think the obsession surrounding it is ridiculous at best and toxic at worst.

Their purpose is actually more like the credits of a single 'episode' of a TV show rather than a true ending.

A better word for them would probably be "routes" rather than "endings" because the story continues and builds on what could be called 'Episode 1' of Nier Automata, aka Ending A.

This game has an ending for every single letter of the alphabet. 26 endings. Granted, a large majority of them are either joke endings or something but they're not endings in the traditional sense.

 

[KarmaCow]

If you feel this way you should skip Nier.

If only there were people who felt like this person and reviewed games so other people like them could know what to expect.

 

[gow3isben]

Metacritic should put in some formulas to minimize the effects of gross outliers.

 

[guybrushfreeman]

He didn't though, he didn't play 10 minutes and he didn't play 30 seconds, he spent a significant amount of time with it.

My point is that saying he say 'the credits' is a completely meaningless statement

 

[KHarvey16]

Metacritic should put in some formulas to minimize the effects of gross outliers.

We can call it averaging.

 

[prag16]

'Saw the credits' is meaningless when the game is only 1/3 over. If I played a game by just running the credits from the main menu could I give it a 1/10? He literally only played 1/3 of the game. The credits have nothing to do with it

He complained about far more than just the story. If he goes through 20 hours of them gameplay loop and doesn't like it and isn't really having fun, that's a valid conclusion to come to.

Again it's like the people that insisted Xenoblade X gets good! I promise! Just get to that 50 hour mark and it really takes off!

 

[Ooccoo]

I find it pretty gross that someone could receive a review copy from a publisher and not finish the game.

This is something I've debated a lot of times as a reviewer. Ultimately, I think you do NOT have to finish a game in order to review it. Take Persona 5 for instance: how many reviewers have 100 hours to dedicate to a single RPG? You'd be surprised how many games we have to review sometimes, and it's even harder now with video reviews to create. Big games are coming out every single week and not every reviewer is from IGN where there's a lot of staff.

What I think is you DO have to finish a game IF it's sub 30 hours. Like, I wouldn't think it would be honest to review Until Dawn if you only played half of it.

 

[Frumix]

Hey it's almost like assigning arbitrary numbers to your opinions with no common scale, or scale of any kind, is a terrible nonsense practice

 

[Exentryk]

Games aren't books or movies. 1/3 of games basically presents you with the overall game in a nutshell. Games usually just expand on that core element introduced in the beginning of the game.

Wow, are you serious? So many assumptions, and one can basically argue the same for books and movies too.

 

[FLEABttn]

No. As a professional reviewer, you must see the whole product before review. The time it takes for reviews is some arbitrary number and you can't say 10 hour is okay, but 30 hours is not.

Such a standard makes games like World of Warcraft unreviewable, which is a notion few people would believe. Video games aren't just a story's means of conveyance, like a movie is, there is an interactive element here. It's entirely unrealistic to divorce the gameplay from the story but to also require finishing the entire story to determine a score for something gameplay based.

 

[Son.Ralph.Funk]

My favourite basketball team was "supposed to" win last night, but lost because of a couple shots near the end they missed that they were "supposed to" make.

LOL!

 

[True Fire]

He didn't though, he didn't play 10 minutes and he didn't play 30 seconds. He spent a significant amount of time with it.

Who are you to judge what is and isn't significant? He played 1/4 of the game and roughly 1/2 of the story. He also skipped most of the best parts of the game.

 

[KHarvey16]

Wow, are you serious? So many assumptions, and one can basically argue the same for books and movies too.

Yeah I hate the way Catcher in the Rye controls.

 

[VanillaCakeIsBurning]

None of Yoko Taro's games work like this.

They play with 'alternate timelines' and 'different' endings in the sense that certain routes are part of story progression.

For example, Ending A of Drakengard 3 is only the beginning of the actual story.

Seems some people get rattled when a game uses something traditional in a not so traditional way.

I've seen some comments to the effect that since it's labeled Ending A that they should be able to put the game down even though there's a clear message afterwards that tells you that you're not done. And these sorts of comments are delivered in this weirdly self-indignant way as if the commenter is sticking it to people by saying that the game is over even though Nier: Automata is not the first game to use credits like this and it won't be the last.

 

[LotusHD]

This is something I've debated a lot of times as a reviewer. Ultimately, I think you do NOT have to finish a game in order to review it. Take Persona 5 for instance: how many reviewers have 100 hours to dedicate to a single RPG? You'd be surprised how many games we have to review sometimes, and it's even harder now with video reviews to create. Big games are coming out every single week and not every reviewer is from IGN where there's a lot of staff.

What I think is you DO have to finish a game IF it's sub 30 hours. Like, I wouldn't think it would be honest to review Until Dawn if you only played half of it.

Feels so arbitrary when you put it like that though.

 

[dragonflys545]

None of Yoko Taro's games work like this.

They play with 'alternate timelines' and 'different' endings in the sense that certain routes are part of story progression.

For example, Ending A of Drakengard 3 is only the beginning of the actual story.

I'm sorry but that's the developers fault... if they want people to get all the endings don't make them replaying the entire game to get them.

 

[SarusGray]

I think it depends. 65 hours of Skyrim or Witcher 3, 10 hours of playthroughs of a roguelike without actually reaching the end, etc., I don't think it's necessary to complete games like that. One can form valid impression of gameplay, polish, and so on without finishing

Short games, very narrative focused games (ie Inside, Papers Please, Walking Dead, Last of Us, and so on), should be finished.

I agree. You can't force someone to sit through 65 hours of a game, especially if they hate it. Sometimes its just not someones cup of teas. People love some games. People like some games. People hate some games.

 

[StoOgE]

I don't have a real issue with this.

I mean, if they are playing 2-3 hours, sure.

But I don't think hour 19 of a game has really changed my opinion of it strongly. You either like what is there or you don't by that point. Maybe it gets slightly better or slightly repetitive in the end-game. Or the story ends in a good way or a dumb way.

But, like I knew I didn't like Arkham Knight as much as the prior Arkham games long before I finished it.. and the last few missions are pretty rad. And the ending is pretty neat. But, my opinion of the game was largely baked in at around the 4-5 hour mark after I had gotten the Batmobile down.

 

[Espada]

Roger Ebert:



He's done this with about 5 or 6 films throughout his career.

If a reviewer hates something, they're perfectly within their rights not to get all the way through it. Granted, they're not very professional if they do this all the time, but in games above most other media, it's completely possible to form an opinion without exhausting all of the content. There is a tipping point beyond which nothing will redeem what you have already gone through, and if that becomes the case, there is no need to go on.

Exhausting all content in a game is very different from a book or movie, but the reviewer should definitely reach the end credits in a game. Asking them to complete a game (reach end credits) is a completely reasonable request. If they did not reach the end of a title, the review should indicate this prominently. From that point the person can explain themselves to the readers.

The problem here, CHC, is not only that they're giving reviews of products they did not see end to end. It's also that this practice is somewhat commonplace without the reviews or the sites publishing them letting the public know about it.

 

[Dio]

I'm sorry but that's the developers fault... if they want people to get all the endings don't make them replaying the entire game to get them.

You don't have to replay the game a ton of times to get all the endings. You only have to do it once. Granted, I see what you mean and I'm not saying I wouldn't have liked all new content for the second ending, but that changes.

 

[ModBot]

This much anxiety over aggregated review scores can't be healthy.

 

[ULTROS!]

I agree. You can't force someone to sit through 65 hours of a game, especially if they hate it. Sometimes its just not someones cup of teas. People love some games. People like some games. People hate some games.

Well, NieR can be fully completed at 30-35 hours. I completed 41 hours and doing 80% of the side quests.