Zampella: Reviewers should finish games

By Tom Bramwell Published 13 August, 2010

Respawn bosses discuss games journalism.

Respawn Entertainment founder Vince Zampella feels there's "nothing more frustrating" than games journalists who review games without completing them.

Zampella was addressing QuakeCon as part of a panel on "Building Blockbusters" alongside Respawn co-founder Jason West, id Software's Tim Willits and Bethesda Game Studios' Todd Howard.

"I've seen reviews where people have written things about the game that are untrue - like that feature doesn't exist, so they obviously didn't play through the entire game," Zampella told the audience.

"There's nothing more frustrating than that. It's unfair."

Todd Howard said he thought that the standard of games journalism was improving as games became a bigger medium, and all the panelists agreed that a well-informed review is not only a boon to a game but to developers too.

"There's other reviews where they were critical on a few things and they were probably right, they called it, okay - and you can live with that. And there are some that are just glowing and you eat those up," Zampella said.

"Reviews. Yeah, that's a tough one," said Jason West. "You want to believe the good ones."

Todd Howard agreed with Zampella. "You want informed reviews. You can tell when someone has played your game and when it was an assignment to get the paycheque...

"If I'm going to play Modern Warfare multiplayer, I know that I'm in for 50 hours, so they do a lot of research, so when the research is a review where some guy didn't spend a lot of time playing your game, that's crushing.

"But if they're going to give you criticism and they've obviously played the game and thought about it, which we all get, it's actually helpful."

Towards the end of the panel, West also chimed in about review scores specifically.

"I'll put in a small pitch for what I think would be a better system of metrics, but it will never happen because people love numbers," he said.

"The way Rotten Tomatoes works for movies I think is a lot more accurate reflection of positive or negative, versus 92, versus 91.3, and they all get averaged out and it's pretty random."

Neither of the Respawn men said anything about their new project, which will be published by Electronic Arts, although they said they were evaluating technology at the moment.

At one point a member of the audience asked about handing sequels off to other developers and mentioned Treyarch, with whom West and Zampella used to share Call of Duty development during their former life at Infinity Ward, and West put his head in his hands for comic effect.

Otherwise the "divorce", as one audience member described it, was off limits for the hour-long discussion.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (88) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • lostlain #1 2 years ago

    I totally agree. I'm pretty sure hardly any reviewers finished Bioshock, or they would have actually criticised it's ending. Instead they praised it for it's seemingly highbrow plot totally overlooking it's very game like(or stephen King style) ending.. look a big boss that is horribly easier to kill than anything in the game! THE END. There are millions of other examples, but this for me had a personal impact as I paid money for it based on it's 10/10 (and I buy a lot of games - stupidly - hoping it has a good plot).
    It works both ways though, some games get completely panned, yet on getting further they become something better, or there is some reason for it's short comings early on.

    I hate reviews.
    Edited by 1 at 13/08/10 @ 18:57

  • StriderRex #2 2 years ago

    I've always wondered that about reviews myself, sometimes you will read a review, play the game and wonder whether or not the reviewer played it properly, I read somewhere years ago that (in some games at least, if not all), reviewers are given codes to skip through certain parts of a game so they can finish it quickly, its understandable if there is an avalanche of games to review (especially around Xmas) and one is a 50 hour RPG epic, but it means the reader may be put off buying a game as a result even though they may in fact love it if they did play it.

    I wouldnt mind if they put a disclaimer on big games (RPG's, MMORPG's etc), but for most others they shouldnt need to, can you imagine the matrix being reviewed without the reviewer having seen Bullet Time?
    Cant think of another movie reference to prove my point right now but im sure somebody will know what im talking about!

  • Sweefyt #3 2 years ago

    Game reviews in contrast to literary reviews are opinions, more often than not written by babbling, unethical idiots without a shred of journalistic integrity. I would argue that purchasing games based on reviews is what's unfair, not the terrible critics who review half-completed games, or worse, finish games but adjust their opinions to safeguard advertising revenue.

  • jag10 #4 2 years ago

    i only read reviews for a laugh tbh. i use my own brain to decide if i'm going to get a game.

  • bdc #5 2 years ago

    The long comments so far now offset by this useless and short one

  • Paperghost #6 2 years ago

    i'm convinced a good chunk of the overly negative reviews for alpha protocol stopped dead on the first set of vaguely horrible Saudi missions. A great game is just past those clunkers :(

  • Shikasama #7 2 years ago

    In general there is a distinct lack of the 'journalism' involved in games journalism. Take our very own EG, which spends the majority of its time reporting what other news sites have put on their websites. Games journalists also feed into the fanboy and internet 'l33t' culture far too often. Things like fact checking, research, faithful representation, making sure your opinion is informed and balanced are given less attention making sure you get one developer calling a publisher a total dick on your front page.

    What EG are good at amongst all that though, is often correcting when they are FACTUALLY wrong (not neccessarily when they make a massive arse of themsleves like the above example mind) which is something.

    Reviews should always be seen as subjective opinion pieces though. Sites/magazines can barely be consistent with themselves across contributors , the dissapointing part is that sites like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes have turned it into an actual measurement of quality. Or at least thats how publishers perceive them. That at least, is their own fault.
    Edited by 1 at 13/08/10 @ 19:06

  • Old_Books #8 2 years ago

    Got to agree with sweefyt in all his/her cynicism, (though EG is an exception IMO).

    I do think it's difficult for the reviewers to do this in every single case. I just don't see how they would have the time for, say, something like Fallout or Zelda.

  • tachometer #9 2 years ago

    Reviewers finish games? Most developers don't finish games nowadays

  • paul_haine #10 2 years ago

    That's ok, most people don't complete games either.

  • jidnffc #11 2 years ago

    Reviews are tricky. I almost always read them and pay attention to what they say but I never buy/don't buy a game based solely on someone else's opinion. I've enjoyed a few games that weren't well-received (Alpha Protocol and Shadowrun to name two) and never even finished some that were praised to high heaven (GTA IV) so it's always best to take all the different bits of info available and then make your own informed decision.

  • lostlain #12 2 years ago

    @jidnffc

    yes but I'd like to base that informed decision on several reviews where the reviewer has finished the bloody game!

  • RobotRocker #13 2 years ago

    Now lets stop posting PR pieces ad verbatim and stop hugging ELSPA like they are the saviors of the industry as well and we are good.

    As far as I know only Giant Bomb will finish a game before reviewing it while Kotaku indicate the point they were at when they finished the game plus what difficulty they were on as well.

  • Freek #14 2 years ago

    You can't write off reviews in general like that. And that's not even what they are saying. Some reviews are written well and are helpfull both to gamers and developers and some are written porely.
    And above all else they are opinions, not scientific fact. So in order for them to be of use you need to find a source you trust and have a general idea of thier writting style, reviews pratice and taste. So you know how to take thier opinion and use it to gain the info you need to make a decision. If you know that then even a game scopring low can be usefull, becuase you might feel the things that bothered the reviewer won't irritate you as much.
    Edited by 1 at 13/08/10 @ 19:41

  • Woffls #15 2 years ago

    I'm not sure this is entirely fair. If a journalist doesn't finish a game because they feel like they've experienced it all by the half way point, then that's cause for concern and it is a real problem. But, I'd hope that it's more often the case that a reviewer doesn't finish the game because they simply don't have the time. And multiplayer is another issue altogether, because it's inherently difficult to judge.

    I'm sure there's pressure from benefactors for journalists to get reviews done for the game's release, and maybe if they got review code earlier they'd spend the time with the game that it deserves. Another thing I think is worth pointing out: why do ALL the reviews need to be done by launch? People who go and buy it day one probably already know they want it, everyone else might get it a week later. This does conflict with the short-tail marketing of most games, so maybe it's not viable.

    Either way, I think if journalists were less pressured in general they'd feel more inclined to spend time with a game rather than constantly thinking "Have I played this enough yet? I really need to move onto something else today." Of course, as with any observer, my insight is limited.
    Edited by 1 at 13/08/10 @ 19:59

  • beastmaster #16 2 years ago

    Remember a story in Edge about reviews. It had somehow leaked that one reviewer (not theirs) had spent 13 mins playing an RPG on the GBA and wrote a review based on that.

    Now if someone has played a real shitload of these types of games, is 13 mins enough? I don't think so myself.

  • madjim #17 2 years ago

    An example with cimema makes it more clear. How serious is a movie critic when he writes an opinion about a movie if he has left the cinema in the middle of it? The same goes for games. When I played Mafia for the first time I found it annoying. Then I decided to play a couple more missions, just to see what's it about, and now I considered as one of the best games ever. Imagine me being a reviewer who would wrote an opinion based on my initial point of view about the game. Totally unfair.

    Of course, finishing a game is a much harder thing to do, because of the time needed, compared to movies. Especially if the game is long, difficult or shitty (or worst, all of the above), that makes the reviewer's life a little too hard. But it is a job, and as a job, it isn't always about fun. :)

  • djed #18 2 years ago

    It gets really good after 10 hours!

  • miiiguel #19 2 years ago

    I said this a milion times, on the other hand I understand (and we can see here daily ppl whining about "da late reviewz";) the time it takes to fully complete a game, because I always do.
    Edited by 1 at 13/08/10 @ 20:27

  • Ged42 #20 2 years ago

    Though Alpha Protocol has it's flaws, you could tell that quite a few reviewers had only played the beginning bit in Saudi Arabia, which is before the game opens out and gets miles better.

  • Slipstream #21 2 years ago

    Hey makes a fair point, it's not like any game they'll be producing will have a single player mode over 5 hours long anyway...

  • Hantheman #22 2 years ago

    Surely the game should be judged as a whole? But at the same time if a game does nothing to keep you interested beyond 10 hours, what's the point of carrying on? The game should be good throughout, not in patches and thus must be judged accordingly.

  • patchbox360 #23 2 years ago

    and some reviewers should atleast play the game - i refer to eurogamers Fable 2 10/10

  • BigJonno #24 2 years ago

    I wonder how much the practices of the games press discourage writers from finishing games for reviews. It's one thing playing a fifty hour RPG for a review if you're a salaried staff writer (assuming that your boss is aware of how long the game is and is giving you adequate time to get it done) but it's quite another if you're freelance and being paid the exact same amount for the review as you would for an eight hour shooter.

  • UncleLou #25 2 years ago

    Reviewers should finish games

    So should developers. AHAHA.

  • Feanor #26 2 years ago

    If reviewers had had more time to play MW2 multiplayer they would have found the shitload of bugs and glitches hiding in the weeds and the game would have got more accurate i.e. lower scoring reviews.

  • Gearskin #27 2 years ago

    If a game is balls, and the reviewer doesn't WANT to finish it... the game has failed.

  • metalangel #28 2 years ago

    I fondly remember The Times publishing a review of Fallout 1 again for Fallout 2. The editor wasn't too concerned when I emailed them to point this out.

  • darkmorgado #29 2 years ago

    I wonder if he has met Ed Zitron?

    I jest.

  • darkmorgado #30 2 years ago

    In seriousness though, this problem could be so easily eliminated by devs producing review versions of games that require online logins that track the progress through the game of the reviewer. Whenever a reviewer doesn't finish a game and then produces a flawed review, that reviewer can easily be exposed. It's good for the devs, because then they can be sure that they will get accurate reviews (as much as possible), and also good for the community because then we will know that we are getting reviews we can trust.

  • NKSR #31 2 years ago

    He makes a fair point.

    How can you judge and review the multiplayer aspect of a game weeks before it's released to the general public?

  • CalmBlueOcean #32 2 years ago

    The ultimate problem behind all of this is that reviewers don't realise the power they wield.

    The finger of blame could be pointed in three different directions, admittedly, but inside the industry at the moment your studio's average metacritic rating is EVERYTHING. I can't count the number of projects my employers have lost at the last hurdle because a publisher's marketing department went to metacritic and decided our average score was too low.

    Bear in mind that metacritic scores are ALREADY an average, so we are talking about an average of an average there... It's insane, but the upshot of all this is that ONE bad review can significantly damage the future of a studio. Is it any wonder that devs get bitter and twisted about reviewers when their one "subjective opinion" can put them out of the industry for good?

  • SpaceMonkey77 #33 2 years ago

    In a perfect world, all reviewers would finish games they are reviewing. That's not as easy as it used to be, and as games have progressed, it gotten a lot harder.

    The average games mag or website, will get a good few games per month to plough through. While a review on a full play might seem more credible, gamers will usually consult more than just one review, and summarise afterwards.

    Sure, reviewers should finish games, but then so should developers and publishers, who often like to half release games, then sell us the other half via DLC (here's looking at you MW2). Can't say that's fair either, but many of us suck it up, if tempted enough.

    Why would Zampella say this? Probably because those making games, want more time to sell their product unchallenged by reviews. Embargos and NDAs (remember when we never had them?) are designed to gag and control info on a game, before a games release, and it would seem they also want the same kind of control after release. That's nice, in a perfect world but no, its not gonna happen. You can't lick both sides of the lollipop, or get weird, telling reviewers how to play/review your game.

    Just be glad that there are still websites out there, that can review games, through buying them still, as much of the industry crosses the palms of some websites and reviwers with tainted silver of free games. Some might call that a compromising, conflict of interest situation.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #34 2 years ago

    While some people make good points, other comments are typical of armchair specialists. Several things factor into reviews, and some aren't always transparent to the public. Take embargoes and NDAs, for instance: sometimes, you're given a game to review under guidelines such as "not revealing spoilers about a game". Fair game, no? Except... If you're reviewing a sequel that plays exactly like the previous game, how do you explain what's exactly new about the game? You may not talk about events that actually move the game forward. You may not be able to mention characters or locations. If players are itching to know if plotlines from previous entries are resolved, you may be in a position where you can't even discuss it in a review. The end result may come off as fluff or non-informative piece, and the blame may not be squarely on the reviewers' shoulders. Things get worse when a publisher and/or developer tell you can't be specific about things... When some or most of them have been at least publicly shown in trailers.

    Multiplayer aspects also have certain issues. You're given a preview code, in what amounts to a complete game... Except you're looking at empty player lobbies. You can wait around for other players, except the preview build is give out to so few journos you're looking at hours of waiting for someone to drop in. Other rules are also peculiar - take Napoleon: Total War. Some review codes could only be played online against members of the development team. The result? Several reviews pointed out they couldn't experience multiplayer because team members were nowhere to be found. Bioshock 2's MP was for several people a ghost town when review copies were sent out, for instance.

    Other things are both understandable and terrible, such as workload. If you're working under a strict timeline and are required to post news, write hands-on impressions and a review - all of these for one week - you do your best but it's not always possible to finish a game. Professionally, many reviewers try their best to do this - personally, this means sacrificing just about everything else to get the job done, and "everything else" can (and will) also mean other aspects of the profession.

    Both journalists and studios should be more transparent about this, and there should be a better infrastructure in place to keep things in check.

  • alcides #35 2 years ago

    Developpers should finish games.

    I can't judge how good your game is if you hold back chunks of it and let it trickle as DLC.

  • PearOfAnguish #36 2 years ago

    ^ what Diogo said.

    Reviewers are up against it, there just isn't enough time to review everything to completion, not unless you get something like MW2 which lasts about 2 hours. Don't like it? Complain to the people in charge who are responsible for the excessive workloads of many web site and magazine staff. Until you've worked to a deadline that includes producing x amount of pages per month then you do not have any idea what it's like. If you are absolutely insistent on reviewers who play to completion my suggestion would be to stick to amateur and/or specialist sites.

    "In seriousness though, this problem could be so easily eliminated by devs producing review versions of games that require online logins that track the progress through the game of the reviewer. Whenever a reviewer doesn't finish a game and then produces a flawed review, that reviewer can easily be exposed."

    This is hilarious.

  • SpaceMonkey77 #37 2 years ago

    @Diogo

    Nice one, yeah I forgot to mention the multiplayer aspect. With more games coming with these options, a reviewer can't review that part of the game.

    I've done some reviews of books before. While receiveing a review copy might seem nice, it does feel like you are making a deal with the devil.

    Perhaps with games, it might be better idea to buy or rent a game. Maybe second opinion updated reviews, might also help, offering a short burst of extra info, that couldn't be covered previously.

  • JudasBlitzkrieg #38 2 years ago

    I like to use reviews as a kind of barometer, rather than a stone cold guide. BioShock 2 was given rave reviews but I didn't really like it compared to the original one, EG only gave Danté's Inferno 6/10 but I enjoyed it immensely, however short it may have been.

    I read a review and see the points that turn the reviewer on, or off, and I think about if I would likely share the same feelings. For instance, all the reviews of Final Fantasy XIII said the combat system and graphics were superb but the the linear nature layout of the game let it down. All valid points and I came to agree with them. On the flip side, people rave about the likes of Crackdown and it's new brother, and I can't stand either one.

    It doesn't matter to me if a reviewer finishes a game or not, I just want an honest and informed opinion of it.

    For those reviewers who do finish games completely first, I pity the poor sods who had to do Two Worlds..

  • SimonM7 #39 2 years ago

    This much goes without saying (or so I hope!), otherwise reviews ARE "just a dude's opinion" after all. The difference between a site or a publication that gets paid to review things, and a random guy who played a game, is that there's a measure of proffessionalism you should be able to expect from the former. A full grasp of the product you're evaluating is the most utterly basic component of that.

    Otherwise you should be fired, start up a blogspot thing to spout your fickle whims, and pay for games like the rest of us. Frankly.

  • smelly #40 2 years ago

    Maybe this guy needs to give the review websites some more advertising...

  • anomagnus #41 2 years ago

    Getting away from actually finishing games, and focusing more on the structure of Reviews, something i have seen recently on Kotaku, is a nice style of reviews. Rather than spend 2-3 pages trying to be funny, they break it down simply into a few intro paragraphs, and then into what the reviewer liked and then what he didn't like.

    My ideal review would be to have two people review a game, a fan of the genre, and someone who isn't, and have them both post their likes and dislikes, as opposed to some arbitary score at the end that means nothing. I beleive that games, more than movies and books, etc, are much more subject to personal opinion. One man's 7 is another mans 10. Reviewers should stop trying to peg a game at a certain level, stop trying to be funny in reviews, and come back to just simply telling us, in their opinion, what they liked and what they didn't like.

    Surely the EG reviewers would like this, its extra work!

  • Rorsch #42 2 years ago

    I think it all ties with game prices. If people are to spend 30£ or 40£ on a game they try to pick the best one around, making themselves to dependent on reviews.

    With movies it's almost the opposite situation. As cinema tickets are a lot cheaper people can just decide on-the-fly, looking at the poster, title, or who's in it. A movie the critics might consider crap can have the most revenue in a given week.

  • PearOfAnguish #43 2 years ago

    "A full grasp of the product you're evaluating is the most utterly basic component of that"

    If "played to completion" is an essential part of a review for you then I would suggest you stop reading reviews, because many have not been played to the end. It's simply not possible.

  • smurphs #44 2 years ago

    I'm not sure whether it matters. I hardly ever finish games anyway, so a 'half-time' review would probably suit my gaming habits perfectly! Surely people have made up their minds whether a game is 'good' or not by half-way through? If not the game must be pretty poor anyway.

  • bad #45 2 years ago

    I sincerely doubt that the economics of game journalism would permit reviewers to complete a game. I would be very surprised if you got paid enough for a review to put 50 hours into every game without starving.

    Like it or not, the fact that the vast majority of people expect their games reviews for free (or worse: adblock out the only remaining source of income) means that this situation is not likely to improve in the near future.
    Edited by 1 at 14/08/10 @ 10:22

  • Centrifugal #46 2 years ago

    This is very true. For example, many reviewed Final Fantasy XIII before they'd even arrived at Gran Pulse, thus missing out on one the best aspects of the game.

  • kentmonkey #47 2 years ago

    I have less of a problem of a reviewer not finishing a game (Woffls up the page summed my thoughts up succinctly) but more of a problem when they haven't played the game enough in order to ensure that they've captured bugs and features, etc.

    I'll use an example everyone here can read, UFC 2010 on EG. 8/10. Glowing text. No mention of the fighters getting caught in the sides of cages, or sometimes just refusing to respond to any button presses, or the completely unplayable online mode (which has been unplayable since the day of release), or the broken submission system. That's just one example, there are many better ones elsewhere on the web and indeed on this site, that's just the one that springs to mind.

    That's what they should have issue with. Games journalists don't earn a shitload and until they do, they probably need to cover off 4-6 games a month in order get a decent wage, especially if freelance (as many are). Then you also have the time issues enforced on them by the publishers who expect a review within days, sometimes putting pressure on within 48 hours of receipt, in order to get the review published. They (at least some of them) can also take some of the blame for some of the shortcuts.

    So finishing I'm not that bothered with, although there is the argument that you could yet meet a game-breaking bug. But by that time even if that game finished brilliant or went downhill rapidly (e.g. Halo and the library section), it's unlikely to make a massive difference to the score or opinion as long as you had put in a decent amount of time. But spend more time making sure each mode of the game works, that online works, that no bugs are present (no major ones anyway) and that it's really as good or as bad as your suggesting, then I think that's fine. When I play aa game, along with countless others, where I find major bugs present or modes not working properly, that the reviewer didn't bother to point out, I often then take their views in the future with a pinch of salt or, in one particular case, never bother reading any of his reviews again as it's clear he doesn't put enough thought or time into what he's reviewing.

  • fknetwork #48 2 years ago

    I'd give this article a 7.9, it was almost an 8.0 but I had to deduct the 0.1 due to the scoring system I have used.
    Edited by 1 at 14/08/10 @ 11:25

  • Geordiemp #49 2 years ago

    Worst review I ever read was Ellie marking down Ratchet crack in time for being a repeat of previous games, going through the cool hard to please EG phase again...

    Think about that, pause, and then you realise how STUPID a comment that is, when EG give games like ODST or MW2 good scores.

    2nd thing that pxxxes me off is pretentious journalism, blabbing on like an art critic, its a game.

    Most games are similar and have small differences in certain genres, but still love them.
    Edited by 1 at 14/08/10 @ 11:30

  • Shikasama #50 2 years ago

    Lets not forget Fifa 2010. Thats a 9/10 for a broken game.

  • phantasma #51 2 years ago

    The first and last time I bought a game solely trusting a review against my intuition was Spore (9/10 Eurogamer, remember?) and I reeeeally learnt my lesson.

    As much as i acknowledge the timely, structural and economical constraints of journalistic business, sometimes a little bit more time spent with certain games would do the reviews a favour...... especially considering the constant hype around the time these AAA blockbusters launch.
    It's easy to say and hard to be done, but serious journalists should try not to be influenced too much from it.
    And the best receipe against hype bias probably is playing it until the initial overexcitment wears off (at least that's the way it works for me, I would have scored many games higher at first but nowadays I'm aware of that and would NEVER give a score after a couple of levels/missions....).

    But lofty aims VS bleak reality, I know I know :-).

  • Gromit #52 2 years ago

    "nothing more frustrating" than games journalists who review games without completing them"

    "where some guy didn't spend a lot of time playing your game, that's crushing. "

    These two have obviously had very sheltered lives...

  • PlugMonkey #53 2 years ago

    @ Gromit

    Really? So what happens in your life that's so much more frustrating than working on something for 3 years and then having someone write it off without giving it more than a cursory glance?

  • Gromit #54 2 years ago

    @ Plugmonkey

    I think that using phrases like "nothing more frustrating" to describe this, and words like "crushed" were a bit much.

    I think most people would be crushed if all their family was killed, or they were diagnosed with a terminal illness, not for "some" journos not playing your game all the way through.

    I thought his comments lacked perspective and were actually slightly belittling, suggesting his customers would not be able to differentiate between reviews. Also, if there are such key features being missed, why aren't THEY advertising them enough to ensure they are covered?

  • PlugMonkey #55 2 years ago

    You don't think you might be slightly over-reacting? I think most people would probably be slightly more than "frustrated" if all their family members died or they were diagnosed with a terminal illness. I think if someone said there was "nothing more frustrating" than all their family members dying they would be even more maladjusted than you seem to think West and Zampella are. For people dismissing years of work out of hand, 'frustrating' sounds about right.

    I once heard a sportsman say they were "crushed" after losing a final. No-one had died, and yet I resisted leaping on my high horse and galloping off at full speed.

    It's not like he said he was 'distraught'. There's still some headroom beyond feeling 'crushed' isn't there?

  • Gromit #56 2 years ago

    @ PlugMonkey

    "I think most people would probably be slightly more than "frustrated" if all their family members died or they were diagnosed with a terminal illness"

    I didn't use the "frustrated" quote for that point if you read back, only the "crushed", because none of those things are frustrating, they are potentially devastating, obviously.

    Where you made the point above that "frustrated" wouldn't have described those scenarios anywhere near adequately, all my point was that his whining and using words like "crushed" was over-kill.

  • ChocNut #57 2 years ago

    @Gromit - obviously if all of your family was killed that would be bad but that's just a bit extreme don't you think? If you've ever created something artistic (a poem, short story, painting, even a landscape photo) and had somebody criticize it it hurts!

  • miiiguel #58 2 years ago

    @Gromit : no, what you meant is the ever so present "it's only a video-game", though, people forget that one guy's video-game can be another guy whole career. This is not the 80s anymore, this is serious buisness.

  • metalangel #59 2 years ago

    @Gromit: you comments "disgust" me.

    Not really, but I used to handle complaints from rail passengers who claimed to be "disgusted" (and various other ridiculous overreactions) to their train being 30 minutes late.

    Yes, such language is irritating, but welcome to the me me me world.

  • PlugMonkey #60 2 years ago

    Oh FFS!

    They said it was crushing (not they were "crushed";) if someone dismisses years of work without even looking at it properly. How can you engineer having a problem with that? It's a complete non-entity. Nothing to see here.

    I'm guessing you've never worked hard on something you cared about.

  • Gromit #61 2 years ago

    @ Metalangel

    Exactly. I really didn't think it was such a big deal to warrant half a page of comments. I just think they were making a big deal of it.

  • Gromit #62 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey

    Clearly we disagree here, and I think there are better things to do than dissecting a largely irellevant quote, so let's forget it.

  • hiddenranbir #63 2 years ago

    Game journalism, lol.

  • Spekingur #64 2 years ago

    I like reviews that give me information on the game. Score is often irrelevant. Thus I dislike reviews that are constantly praising a game without really giving any info on it.

    @Gromit: Wouldn't you fee extremelyl bad if someone dismissed 2-5 years of your work as "okay-ish"? You'd probably think "and why did I then spend 5 years of my life for that?" - to me at least it would be 'crushing' at that moment in time.
    Also, if my whole family died I would think that the word 'crushing' is a bit... lackluster I guess. It would probably feel more like 'devastated'.

  • espibara #65 2 years ago

    You dont walk out of a film half way through and pass judgement so why do the same to a game?

    But I lost faith in game reviews after Fable 2 got 10/10 on Eurogamer.
    Edited by 1 at 14/08/10 @ 20:43

  • miiiguel #66 2 years ago

    All in all, most people don't complete games. Fact.

    Analogy with movies fail.

  • MJS #67 2 years ago

    Does Zampella seriously think that reviewers can finish every game they review? Even MMOs and massive RPGs?

    Most reviewers are conscientious enough to test all areas of the product and give an informed opinion. A few bad reviews by few bad reviewers, who are probably internet based nobs with an agenda and audience of 2 people, is hardly anything to cry about. Stop being so self important.

    If you agree with him, you're probably the kind of person that buys games based on good revieiw scores, or products based on popularity; i.e, an idiot. Make your own mind up and don't buy things because someone said they were good, or even bad for that matter.
    Edited by 1 at 14/08/10 @ 21:14

  • paketep #68 2 years ago

    It's amazing to see West and Zampella crying about reviews, given that their POS of a game got undeserved 9's and 10's almost everywhere online.

  • Abscido #69 2 years ago

    Games are more comparable to books than films in this regard. Quite often, the whole 'point' of a book is ratified by a twist in the tale, a conclusion, subversion, or an uptake in pacing at the end. However, from a critic's perspective, reading just half the book is enough time to make a judgement on narrative style, the standard of writing, and so on.

    Games journalism suffers from a similar mindset. A game's 'narrative' style might equate to its genre (ie, first-person shooter), while the standard of writing would equate to aesthetics like graphics, sound, overall presentation and controls. From that perspective, playing half the game is enough to pass judgement on such features.

    Unfortunately, unlike books, games can't afford to be 'slow-burners'. Unlike books, we aren't willing to stick with a game in the hope it might surprise us. There's no room for a 'where is this going?' kind of sentiment. If a game hasn't shown its hand in the first hour, there's no hope for it.

    Which is a shame I think. But, on the other hand, it leads to tighter pacing and better opening sequences.

  • JensonJet #70 2 years ago

    Without doubt, I absolutely don't trust the integrity of any reviewers. As they're paid by the advertising revenue from the people supplying the games, a reviewers opinion is utterly worthless to me.

    However, that's not to say that I don't read reviews. I do. But not for opinion or rating. I read reviews just to get a little information about what the game is about and some of it's content. I read them like people read The Sun newspaper. It's a bit of light entertainment, an adult comic of you like.

    I wish reviews mentioned what framerate a game runs at. A smalll piece of information, yes, but far more interesting to me than knowing whether they liked the game or not. After reading reviews of the all the very biggest selling games, they have proved completely unreliable, some perhaps verging on dishonesty.

    I don't need anyone telling me what I will like or what will suit me. I happen to like military shooters. And right now I'm not playing any as every single one of them currently available is anywhere between utter rubbish (Operation Flashpoint, Treyarch-made Call of Duty), or enjoyable for one play-through and holds no long-term interest for me (the rest of them!). As I won't ever read that in a review, nor would expect to, I find their rating system and opinions worthless.
    Edited by 2 at 15/08/10 @ 08:41

  • PlugMonkey #71 2 years ago

    What might be useful is if the reviewer states how much of the game they played in the review, and why they stopped. Don't be ashamed, just be honest.

    I don't buy this "Most games players don't finish games" line. And not simply because of the use of the word "fact" as a sentance. I don't need a reviewer to second guess how much of the game I buy I'm going to want to play. I want them to give me the full picture, not the bit of the picture they think I might want to look at.

    I accept this is more investment of time than reviewing a movie, but that's also the reason I rarely read movie reviews. I need more pre-purchase information about something I'm going to invest £40/20 hours in than something I'm going to invest £4/2 hours in. If you don't think you can provide that, then don't bother.

    I mostly read reviews of games I hadn't heard of to see if I'm missing something. People love to slate reviewers on here (people love to slate everyone on here, event developers' innocent use of language...) but the fact remains that if it wasn't for EuroGamer reviews I read, I wouldn't own Slitherlink. Or Demons Souls. Or Earth Defence Force 2017.

  • DoctorFouad #72 2 years ago

    This is not new, it is well lnown that only very few reviewers finish the games they are reviewing.

    it is logical, the majority of games need more than 20 hours to finish (some RPGs need more than 50 hours) + multiplayer + some games could be very hard and especially frustrating to finish, especially if the reviewer hate the game....when the boss give a reviewer 5 + games to review per week (especially the christmas period or today the march period) it is impossible to finish all those games...

    So the problem is not that : a reviewer must finish the game ! (you cant impose to a reviewer to finish a horrible frustrating game), the problem is : reviewers must be honest and indicate in the review that they didnt finish it, unfortunately this almost doesent happen....it is not honest...

  • fizzyfish #73 2 years ago

    The problem with Rotten Tomatoes is that it only considers whether a review falls on the positive or negative side of the fence, effectively weighting it, heavy-handedly, as a either a '10' or a '0', respectively. The result is that there's absolutely no (statistical) distinction between a movie that everyone agrees is above average and one that is an undisputed classic; they're both going to have 100% slapped on them.

  • kentmonkey #74 2 years ago

    JensonJet, that's flawed logic though.

    Not all reviewers get paid. And just because you get paid by advertising revenue, doesn't mean to say that suddenly nobody has any standards or principles anymore.

    There are some dodgy ones, no doubt, and there are some dodgy publications/websites as well (a fairly high profile case only a few years ago with a well-known site), but that doesn't mean to say that the whole industry is bent.

  • Harmonica #75 2 years ago

    You can play Modern Warfare 2 for an hour or two and find out everything you could ever hope to learn about it. I've put in the hours like everyone else, over year or so it's been out, but really, it's yer dyed in the wool revisionist shooter.

    Great game artistes they are not, sorry. Not with MW2, and even with CoD4 the format was a little old-hat. Hopefully they get a new lease of life with EA, whenever their game arrives.
    Edited by 2 at 15/08/10 @ 12:54

  • Shinetop #76 2 years ago

    Yeah, and if every reviewer had 50 hours to spend on each game I'm sure they like to complete every game they have to review too. Bizarrely, game reviewers have... deadlines? And these are usually not months away, but next week. Damn those evil lazy reviewers providing free publicity for your game.

  • CaptainKid #77 2 years ago

    Reading reviews??
    I just go to Metacritic and look at the number.
    And if the number is over 90 and I want additional info I'll head to a forum to read actual player comments.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #78 2 years ago

    Oh boy.

    1. If your game is so shit that the reviewer can't stand to play it for more than two hours, YOU'VE failed, not the reviewer. No gamer should have to wade through hours of crap to get to the good bit, so if you've done that the reviewer is fully entitled to paste you for it. Would you put up with ten hours of trailers before the movie started, or would you walk out?

    2. Reviewing multiplayer games before the game's been released is to all intents and purposes entirely impossible and meaningless. Stop moaning, unless you're prepared to read the review six weeks after the game comes out.

    3. These days a reviewer might realistically have maybe two days to spend on reviewing a single game if they're staff, or be getting paid perhaps £200 if they're freelance. You want them to put in 50+ hours work for that? Fuck off. Not only is that stupid, it's actually illegal - the national minimum wage is £5.80/hr, and there are laws about maximum working hours too.

  • ziggy_played_guitar #79 2 years ago

    it's actually illegal - the national minimum wage is £5.80/hr, and there are laws about maximum working hours too.

    I do a lot of work at home, 'cos I like what I do, and most of all I like to be good at what I do. Don't call the cops, please.

  • sonicgoo #80 2 years ago

    I'm going to make the greatest game ever. Then add 50 hours of drudgery in front of it. Just to annoy reviewers.

  • CalmBlueOcean #81 2 years ago

    Stu - your two arguments work against each other a bit there. Are the journo's reviewing games they haven't completed because they are shit, or because the deadlines are too tight?

    There's a flipside as well... plenty of games get a raft of 9s and 10s on review because, yes, the first two hours are great, but they then turn into repetitive pap afterwards. Kung Fu Panda is a great example of this. It was so heavily lauded in the reviews it's become a benchmark of sorts for making a good kids game. Unfortunately, as soon as you are past the third level cut and paste level design, under implemented mechanics and tedious pacing really start to hurt the experience.

    I'm sure its hard on reviewers, I'm sure deadlines are too tight and they can't possibly complete every game they are assigned, but then that's surely quite a big problem with games journalism in general, isn't it? It's not unreasonable for developers, who work some brutal hours to vicious deadlines themselves, to want their end result to be judged based on its entirety rather than just the first impressions. Especially when you consider the damage that a poor review can do to their financial returns on that work.

  • DilutedDante #82 2 years ago

    CalmBlueOcean - Both.

    It also doesn't help that we have things like the 'restrictive review practice' alluded to in the Edge review of ODST. Can a reviewer be expected to give a fair review when they're made to travel to the developer, and play the game with a bunch of other journo's whilst big burly men stand over them?

  • unacomn #83 2 years ago

    Here's another thing that's frustrating and unfair, deadlines. They stink for the journalist who don't have enough time to test the game to the fullest extent, and for the devs who often don't have enough time to actually release a final version and just dump a beta on the market.

  • rudderless #84 2 years ago

    First game I ever reviewed for a magazine was a jRPG I spent over thirty hours playing before getting well and truly stuck (and the review had to be submitted the next day, so I couldn't have played much longer anyway). I got £120 for the review, which is less than £100 once you factor in tax.

    As soon as the mag was with subscribers, someone posted a score thread on a certain forum. Within minutes, the first comment was up, accusing me of either being on crack, not understanding the genre, or not having played the game. "Or all three." All based on one little number. I had to laugh, really.

  • smelly #85 2 years ago

    >I'm sure its hard on reviewers, I'm sure deadlines are too tight

    Well boo fucking hoo. The developers deadlines are tight too. But do reviewers think of the poor hard done by developers when they're slagging off their hard work? Are you saying the reviewers should be above criticism, because they give criticism? I'd have thought people who criticise other peoples work should be the first to be criticised.

  • smelly #86 2 years ago

    Quote (from the "rev";) : "Stop moaning"

    Rich coming from you.

  • 3william56 #87 2 years ago

    If it takes more than an hour for a game to reveal what makes it good, then the game has sh*t design, and you deserve what you get, review and sales-wise. Borderlands is a good example. I'm glad I persevered through the initial grind, and it does hit it's stride after 5 or 6 hours, but it would have been a hell of a lot better game if it started about New Haven with a level ~15 character. It didn't need the bulking and bullsh*t fetch quests. Expecting players to plough through hours of crap is stupid; expecting reviewers with deadlines to do so is even more ridiculous.

  • Redeye #88 2 years ago

    As a developer, and an ex-games journo, and a full-time cynic, I think it can be said that a large whack of developers (and virtually ALL publishers) don't give a flying fuck whether the reviewer has played the game in its entirety as long as there's a high score on the end of it.