Current Events > If you review video games (FOR A LIVING) you should be required to 100% the game

(+) Yeah! (+)

BEFORE you publish your review.

It's your ****ing job I don't care if it's nigh unplayable. You play games for a living.
---

Nah. There are games which are essentially the same from start to finish.
---

FOR A LlVING

This assumes that most gamers 100% games. They do not.
---

Beating the story and having tried all the mechanics to a reasonable degree is all you need to do to have an informed opinion.

Nah, if anything their average hours spent per game is probably lower than the average gamer, mostly because a reviewer probably has hundreds of games to play through
---

100%, not necesserially, but you should at least complete the storyline and attempt a decent amount of the side stuff.
---

Guide posted...

Nah. There are games which are essentially the same from start to finish.

Nah. I don't care. 100% or you don't get to post your review.
It is too important a job for the entire industry (huge influence on sales) for it to be delegated to some easily distracted 30 year olds with a lucky career. For example series with maybe more of a niche following get like no love; and the reviewer will use these magic words to excuse himself from getting into it or caring about it "Will appeal to fans of the series" No, now the series attracts no new fans, no growth, that it may otherwise get if your review didn't include that crappy copout, and now the series dies. Yes the reviewer should be required to 100% Tales of Berseria (it's a completely hypothetical example, I don't really play that series), but she/he didn't.
---

TiamatLover posted...

100%, not necesserially, but you should at least complete the storyline and attempt a decent amount of the side stuff.

Was gonna say this, then I remembered that game developers HATE people that do this because it leaves minimal incentive to buy the game.

So:
-The player will hate it because they'll likely be stuck playing something not out of enjoyment, but simply because they HAVE to.
-Game devs will hate it because people won't buy the game when they can just watch a playthrough.
-Watchers will hate it because the player will probably struggle with the game, and they'll need to watch them play the entire thing.

...what's the benefit of required 100% runs again?
---

How do you 100% World of Warcraft?

Kazi1212 posted...

Nah, if anything their average hours spent per game is probably lower than the average gamer, mostly because a reviewer probably has hundreds of games to play through

No they don't have hundreds. Go to any of the big ones, they cycle authors, some sites even have a staffer they like for particular genres, etc. I'm sure you've seen that. That's not hundreds, that's your job and I assume their primary one in game journalism.
---

ALLCAPSNOSPACES posted...

How do you 100% World of Warcraft?

Can you just fill in the obvious exceptions yourself?
---

Guide posted...

Nah. There are games which are essentially the same from start to finish.

Whoa @Guide is on CE now?
---

Very_Unreliable posted...

It is too important a job for the entire industry

No it isn't

Very_Unreliable posted...

delegated to some easily distracted 30 year olds with a lucky career.

lol

Very_Unreliable posted...

For example series with maybe more of a niche following get like no love; and the reviewer will use these magic words to excuse himself from getting into it or caring about it "Will appeal to fans of the series" No, now the series attracts no new fans, no growth, that it may otherwise get if your review didn't include that crappy copout, and now the series dies. Yes the reviewer should be required to 100% Tales of Berseria (it's a completely hypothetical example, I don't really play that series), but she/he didn't.

That's a silly expectation. If the game only appeals to fans of the series that's not really on the reviewer to change that.

Also sometimes playing a game to 100% is a worse experience than knowing when to move on.

Very_Unreliable posted...

No they don't have hundreds. Go to any of the big ones, they cycle authors, some sites even have a staffer they like for particular genres, etc. I'm sure you've seen that. That's not hundreds, that's your job and I assume their primary one in game journalism.

Not really. They preview games as well. Interview people in the industry. All sorts of other things depending on the site (podcasts, videos etc.)
---

I don't feel you need to 100% a game to provide an opinion on how good you think it is. Come on, you pretty much know after a couple hours or so.

Darmik posted...

Very_Unreliable posted...

It is too important a job for the entire industry

No it isn't

Very_Unreliable posted...

delegated to some easily distracted 30 year olds with a lucky career.

lol

Very_Unreliable posted...

For example series with maybe more of a niche following get like no love; and the reviewer will use these magic words to excuse himself from getting into it or caring about it "Will appeal to fans of the series" No, now the series attracts no new fans, no growth, that it may otherwise get if your review didn't include that crappy copout, and now the series dies. Yes the reviewer should be required to 100% Tales of Berseria (it's a completely hypothetical example, I don't really play that series), but she/he didn't.

That's a silly expectation. If the game only appeals to fans of the series that's not really on the reviewer to change that.

Also sometimes playing a game to 100% is a worse experience than knowing when to move on.

Very_Unreliable posted...

No they don't have hundreds. Go to any of the big ones, they cycle authors, some sites even have a staffer they like for particular genres, etc. I'm sure you've seen that. That's not hundreds, that's your job and I assume their primary one in game journalism.

Not really. They preview games as well. Interview people in the industry. All sorts of other things depending on the site (podcasts, videos etc.

There are games that looked alright and I didn't buy for sure because the guy said the "fans of the last one blah blah" and it's a sure fire cop out.

Sales are influenced by only two things primarily and that's marketing and critical reception (which are becoming the same thing now)
---

ArchiePeck posted...

I don't feel you need to 100% a game to provide an opinion on how good you think it is. Come on, you pretty much know after a couple hours or so.

I don't need to 100% it to provide my opinion, but a guy who gets published in both print and on high traffic websites front pages; should probably at least complete all the content.
---

DK9292 posted...

TiamatLover posted...

100%, not necesserially, but you should at least complete the storyline and attempt a decent amount of the side stuff.

Was gonna say this, then I remembered that game developers HATE people that do this because it leaves minimal incentive to buy the game.

So:
-The player will hate it because they'll likely be stuck playing something not out of enjoyment, but simply because they HAVE to.
-Game devs will hate it because people won't buy the game when they can just watch a playthrough.
-Watchers will hate it because the player will probably struggle with the game, and they'll need to watch them play the entire thing.

...what's the benefit of required 100% runs again?

We're talking about reviews, not LPs, here.
---

ViewtifulGrave posted...

Guide posted...

Nah. There are games which are essentially the same from start to finish.

Whoa @Guide is on CE now?

I stop by biannually, especially since our weebin' board is dying.
---

Very_Unreliable posted...

There are games that looked alright and I didn't buy for sure because the guy said the "fans of the last one blah blah" and it's a sure fire cop out.

Why is that a cop out if it's true? Some games are designed to appeal to an existing fanbase.
---

Darmik posted...

Very_Unreliable posted...

There are games that looked alright and I didn't buy for sure because the guy said the "fans of the last one blah blah" and it's a sure fire cop out.

Why is that a cop out if it's true? Some games are designed to appeal to an existing fanbase.

Yeah developers make games specifically not to see any growth but to flatline. That's what corporations do, nice things for their pals.
---

Very_Unreliable posted...

ArchiePeck posted...

I don't feel you need to 100% a game to provide an opinion on how good you think it is. Come on, you pretty much know after a couple hours or so.

I don't need to 100% it to provide my opinion, but a guy who gets published in both print and on high traffic websites front pages; should probably at least complete all the content.

Hmm... no I disagree. They can provide a grounded opinion on whether or not they think the game is worth buying based off of a decent play of the game. They are being paid for their writing skill/ability to communicate this opinion in an engaging in meaningful way, not to be a games tester that exhaustively explores every single last corner of the game world.

I mean, major food critics aren't expected to eat the entire menu of a restaurant - they sample a few of the dishes and soak up the atmosphere of the room and review the overall experience.

Very_Unreliable posted...

BEFORE you publish your review.

It's your ****ing job I don't care if it's nigh unplayable. You play games for a living.

In most cases you don't even get the game until a week before it releases. Hard to 100% most games in that time
---

Very_Unreliable posted...

Guide posted...

Nah. There are games which are essentially the same from start to finish.

Nah. I don't care. 100% or you don't get to post your review.
It is too important a job for the entire industry (huge influence on sales) for it to be delegated to some easily distracted 30 year olds with a lucky career. For example series with maybe more of a niche following get like no love; and the reviewer will use these magic words to excuse himself from getting into it or caring about it "Will appeal to fans of the series" No, now the series attracts no new fans, no growth, that it may otherwise get if your review didn't include that crappy copout, and now the series dies. Yes the reviewer should be required to 100% Tales of Berseria (it's a completely hypothetical example, I don't really play that series), but she/he didn't.

There is so much that doesn't make sense here, I don't know where to begin.
---

TiamatLover posted...

DK9292 posted...

TiamatLover posted...

100%, not necesserially, but you should at least complete the storyline and attempt a decent amount of the side stuff.

Was gonna say this, then I remembered that game developers HATE people that do this because it leaves minimal incentive to buy the game.

So:
-The player will hate it because they'll likely be stuck playing something not out of enjoyment, but simply because they HAVE to.
-Game devs will hate it because people won't buy the game when they can just watch a playthrough.
-Watchers will hate it because the player will probably struggle with the game, and they'll need to watch them play the entire thing.

...what's the benefit of required 100% runs again?

We're talking about reviews, not LPs, here.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Very_Unreliable posted...

BEFORE you publish your review.

It's your ****ing job I don't care if it's nigh unplayable. You play games for a living.

In most cases you don't even get the game until a week before it releases. Hard to 100% most games in that time

A week of working hours is 32-40 hours, and did I mention, it's their job? Put a few more until you can right your piece from the pov of someone who has completed the content in the game.
---

Very_Unreliable posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

Very_Unreliable posted...

BEFORE you publish your review.

It's your ****ing job I don't care if it's nigh unplayable. You play games for a living.

In most cases you don't even get the game until a week before it releases. Hard to 100% most games in that time

A week of working hours is 32-40 hours, and did I mention, it's their job? Put a few more until you can right your piece from the pov of someone who has completed the content in the game.

Some games are over 100 hours to 100% them.

How would somebody get a RDR2 review out in time? They would need to write it as well...

Cramming in that much playtime to meet embargo isn't how most of the audience will even play the game.
---

they shouldnt have to 100% it but they should have to beat it at least
---

nemu posted...

Beating the story and having tried all the mechanics to a reasonable degree is all you need to do to have an informed opinion.

This. Idgaf if they got all the collectibles and killed all the optional bosses. Just play from beginning to end, finish it, try different game modes enough to distinguish between them clearly enough for the review.
---

Nah, just the main storyline.

100% certain games could take literally over 100 hours, beating the final boss is enough.
---

Very_Unreliable posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

Very_Unreliable posted...

BEFORE you publish your review.

It's your ****ing job I don't care if it's nigh unplayable. You play games for a living.

In most cases you don't even get the game until a week before it releases. Hard to 100% most games in that time

A week of working hours is 32-40 hours, and did I mention, it's their job? Put a few more until you can right your piece from the pov of someone who has completed the content in the game.

How the fuck do you 100% Pokemon Ultra Sun in 40 hours?
---

A review should reflect a person's actual experience of playing the game though. Rushing through the game and not completing everything so that they can get the review out of the way asap will ultimately create reviews that are jaded and not very helpful in general. But of course the other argument is that if you take the time to actually play the game then reviewing will take forever since so many games come out.

This is more of a case where the entire concept of a video game review is flawed to begin with. When you see movies, you always have a set amount of time that you need to expend to watch them. When you used to play NES/SNES games, you could get those done in an hour to 20-30 hours at the worst and still see all there is to see about it.

Video games nowadays aren't like that (the good ones anyways). Your measily 100 hours of experience with a game might still be insufficient to the grand scheme of what that video game might want to convey to the player. If you think oh, it's probably gonna be the same shit to the rest of the game, then your opinion is undeniably incomplete and flawed.
---

Hitman 2 will be an interesting example.

If it's anything like Hitman 2016 it'll take an incredibly long time to 100%. Like over 100 hours. But yet there's only gonna be 6 levels. The game isn't really designed to binge. It's designed to always have more content to play when you come back to it. They add additional elusive targets and escalations every month to incentivize players to return.

How would one 100% this game? A lot of modern games are designed in a similar way.
---

legendarylemur posted...

A review should reflect a person's actual experience of playing the game though. Rushing through the game and not completing everything so that they can get the review out of the way asap will ultimately create reviews that are jaded and not very helpful in general. But of course the other argument is that if you take the time to actually play the game then reviewing will take forever since so many games come out.

This is more of a case where the entire concept of a video game review is flawed to begin with. When you see movies, you always have a set amount of time that you need to expend to watch them. When you used to play NES/SNES games, you could get those done in an hour to 20-30 hours at the worst and still see all there is to see about it.

Video games nowadays aren't like that (the good ones anyways). Your measily 100 hours of experience with a game might still be insufficient to the grand scheme of what that video game might want to convey to the player. If you think oh, it's probably gonna be the same shit to the rest of the game, then your opinion is undeniably incomplete and flawed.

Thus far this is the only post I agree with.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Very_Unreliable posted...

BEFORE you publish your review.

It's your ****ing job I don't care if it's nigh unplayable. You play games for a living.

In most cases you don't even get the game until a week before it releases. Hard to 100% most games in that time

This is true.