Vince Zampella Thinks Reviewers Need To “Finish Games”

Nathan Schmidt writes...

"At a Quakecon panel called “Building Blockbusters” yesterday, Vince Zampella used his time to express the need for reviewers to “finish games” that they are reviewing. Vince made some very good points and you can check them out below…"

[clank543]

You know. I've seen many reviewers lately stating that they in fact haven't finished their games. One example was IGN with Naughty Bear. Sure, it was a horrible game, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't finish the game. Its part of their JOB. Its like if I worked in A Coca-Cola factory and didn't decide to put caps on the bottle that day.

[Komega]

Yeah, how do reviewers expect people to trust their opinions, or have any credibility if they are not even finishing the games they review? Bubbles for truth:)

[scar20]

bubble 4 u mi amigo

[FarEastOrient]

It's like watching Inception but only watching it half-way, how can you make a decent review doing a job like that.

[pustulio]

"Yeah, how do reviewers expect people to trust their opinions, or have any credibility if they are not even finishing the games they review?"

People trust them anyway, look what happened with lost planet 2.

OT: I think Vince meant "You should have finished MW2 before making a review so you don't give 10's and 9's to a game that deserves a 5" :)

[TEFL0N_D0N_81]

Speaking of which, what happened to my previous comment? I had a couple of f-bombs in there, but it got deleted?

[whitesoxfalife]

i know that all too well thas it why we at realtalkgaming.com we dont bullshit around wit our reviews we must play the whole game thru but since are we just a tiny website we cant get those games like the folks at IGN we have to buy our games and then hopefully readers like you will come to our site to read our version of the game we review

[TOO PAWNED]

It should be obligatory for reviwers to finish games, no matter how bad it might be, ending might great or worth enough to affect the score and regardless of that, it would be like leaving some movie 15 minutes in and then reviewing it.

[Komega]

I've been thinking about it, and I know in the past that reviewers sometimes fall back on the excuse "sometimes there just isn't enough time to finish a 30+ hour game" or some other nonsense. Well screw that noise, you're collecting a paycheck....finish the fu**ing game!

[-Ikon-]

This goes under the DUH Category for me. Just like a Movie or Album why review it before you even finish it..

[RedBullGT]

they should finish the games before they write a review, but they sometimes do not receive a game until a few days until the game is released and they have to play the game, write the review and do other duties by a certain deadline, and if they do not get the reviews done before the game comes out or soon after the game is released many gamers get pissed that there is no review yet. It is not like they are not trying to finish the game, they are just trying to please everyone and do their job.

[TheHater]

IGN "reviewers" stated several times that they didn't finish, play co-op, or online parts of game before writing their reviews. Ryan Clements is notorious for not playing everything the game offer or even finishing a game before reviewing them.

[KMxRetro]

"You know. I've seen many reviewers lately stating that they in fact haven't finished their games. One example was IGN with Naughty Bear. Sure, it was a horrible game, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't finish the game. Its part of their JOB"

Oh, put a sock in it.

I'm sorry, but when YOU have reviewed over 1,000 games in 7 years, you will have enough experience to know when a game has shown you all that it intends to show you and, whether or not it even matters. If a garbage game makes you play through 7 hours of awfulness, then throws in a great 30 minute final level, should that change the score that much? Hell to the no.

Plus, how would anyone review World of Warcraft, or most MMOs? Just out of interest.

[kanetheking]

ever game is different no game is the same.u just type all of that for noting

[iceman06]

experience should lends reviewers an edge on determining whether or not a game is great within a certain amount of time. However, the reviewer probably should not paint a picture in the review as if the game was completed. That means steering away from comments about certain game elements not being included...when they might show up in levels that were not completed. Just be honest about the level of completion and your opinions during that period of game play. This would also help to review those 40+ hr. games and mmo's alike. At the end of the day, a review is just an opinion based on experience. They shouldn't be used as absolute truths, only guides to keep us away from the stinkers that get thrown in with the great releases each year.

[Dac2u]

I think game devs need to finish their games as well. Enough of this; we'll give you half a game and make you play the rest via DLC.

[xYLeinen]

Start with this. Don't review a Call of duty game unless you have prestiged 10 times.

[Komega]

lol, but what if they can't find a prestige lobby?

[Focker-420]

Well then we might actually get a legitimate review. Instead of an overhyped one.

[HeroXIV]

Well said. Reviewers praise the MP component too early. Re-reading some of the MW2 reviews it's kinda embarrassing to hear it being praised.

[hatchimatchi]

It's perfectly fine though to accept high marks for multiplayer when servers weren't on and apparently it's ok to release games that are clearly not ready for release, ie MW2 MULTIPLAYER. Gotta love hypocrites.

9 times out of 10 if a game sucks, it sucks and it's not going to take a complete playthrough to notice this. Who cares if people aren't doing full playthroughs of games, do you honestly think people were doing full playthroughs during the nes/snes/genesis era, when games back then were brutally difficult? I guarantee that 99% of the people reviewing ninja gaiden 2 on the nes didn't beat the game.

[TheHater]

Yeah because during the NES days, we were getting reviews left and right like we do today.

[Makidian]

I'm sure 99% of the people reviewing NES games were doing so with a Game Genie so they could blow through them as quickly as possible to meet their deadline. Then again, 99% of all reviews came in magazines instead of multiple forms of media.

[IMATRUCK]

Yeah, and I think game developers should finish games before releasing them but it's so much more profitable to release day-1 DLC.

[Snarkasaur]

No shit?

[tiamat5]

I am sorry but if your game can't hold my attention from the start to even half way through I don't see why I should finish it.If you read a book that was 600 pages long and the first half was boring garbage will you keep reading the book to see if the rest might be better? These people have hundreds of games to review. What do you want them to say? Most of the game sucks but the last half hour is pure gold? At some point in time during the course of the game I need to make my assessment based on what I have seen

[dinkeldinkse]

It's their job to review games. I don't care how bad a game is, if they are getting paid to review it then the least they could do is finish the fucking game.

[KMxRetro]

Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about, dinkeldinkse.

One, there's no need for the language. It doesn't make you look cool. Two, its a reviewer's job to present a balanced opinion of a game. If they feel that they can provide a balanced opinion of a game after playing 4 out of the game's 8 hours worth of play, then so be it.

You give me MW2, I'll complete it and present my review. You give me the fifteenth Cold War hexagon-based battle game that the publisher has released in three months, then I probably won't. When you're not an irritating little fanboy with no knowledge of the industry, you develop the sense to be able to work out when a game either cannot be saved, or cannot get any better, even if it suddenly grew a pair of lips and sucked you off.

Plus, given that 90% of games these days can't be considered "complete" until you've collected 8,000 pigeon feathers or 90,000 condom packets from around the city, most reviewers won't have the time.

[ZombieAutopsy]

If a reviewer can't bring himself to finish a game maybe he should allow someone else to review it.

[dinkeldinkse]

You are completly correct if you are just talking about gameplay because it doesn't take long to figure that out, but reviewing anything else requires beating the game to be a credible review. If anything from the game changed for the better or worse near the end, the reviewer would be caught bsing their review because their laziness.
I stand by my earlier comment, if someone is getting paid to review a game then they should at least beat the game.

[hilliat2783]

For shit sake these people get paid to do a job so they are expected to do it! With your mind set I wouldn't be surprised if you have been fired from every job you ever had because of you lazy ways...if I was your boss I wouldn't even pay you to tie my shoes because you probably wouldn't finish!

[KMxRetro]

Reviewer = Reviews games. Review = opinion of something. Therefore, the job title "Reviewer" does not mean that every game has to be completed. If they can generate a balanced opinion from 4 hours of play, then fair play to them.

The review is only going to get hacked to pieces by ignorant little fanboys in the comment section anyway. "O MI GOD I CNT BELIVE U SED GOD OF WAR WAS ONLY VERY GOOD ND NOT AMAYZING U SUCK PS3 ROOLZ" is about as good as it gets.

Doesn't particularly make me want to go the extra mile, to be honest.

[fireplace]

I think it's THEIR job.

[jack_burt0n]

I like the giant bomb approach they have those quick looks which is them playing for half an hour, and the reviews are really in depth its a good system.

[hatchimatchi]

yea, giant bomb is an awesome site.

[poopface1]

You either play a game all the way and finish it and write a review, or dont write a review at all.

If the game is that bad, then you need to quit your job or get someone else to review it.

If I ran a website Id personally make sure EVERYONE doing a review had finished the game. If not then people can tell, and the credibility of all your sites reviews will be in question. If I had an employee submit a review before finishing a game, Id fire them on the spot.

Part of the problem is some sites clearly choose the wrong reviewers for certain games. They have a guy who hates JRPGs review FF and a guy who hates FPS review COD. Id like to have someone who enjoys those types of games to review it. They wont be inclined to hate it, and they have experience with other games in the same genre, with which they can compare features and expectations.

I dont play crappy games ever, thats why im not a reviewer. But if it was my JOB and someone was to pay me, I would finish a crappy game for my review to be credible. I think talking about why a game sucks might be fun, but its not a meaningful opinion unless you have finished the game.

[KMxRetro]

My local branch of GAME allows you to return something if you don't like it. Based on this article, all people wishing to take them up on their offer, should bring their console with them, so that they can prove to the store staff that they have completed the game first.

I mean if they haven't completed it, how can they be SURE that they don't like it?

I'll bet that 99% of the people commenting on this post have taken a game back to the store, or sold it on eBay, because they "didn't like it." I'll bet that 100% of those people hadn't completed the game.

I wish that people would understand that a review is only somebody's opinion, mixed with facts. One size doesn't fit all. If a friend said "Hey, Game X is brilliant!" and you played it and didn't like it, you wouldn't turn round to your friend and tell them that they were worthless, idiotic, useless, stupid fools that should know better. You wouldn't go onto a forum and post about how much you hated them. You'd accept that opinions differ. A reviewer is doing the same thing as your friend - the only difference is that he gets paid for it, and is GUARANTEED to be at complete odds with at least 20% of the people that read the review, and in some cases, 100% of the people.

His or her opinion is still valid, as it is just that...an OPINION.

[mastiffchild]

No. If a game "gets better later" it's not good enough and SHOULDN'T be finished in order to say what you think. If it's that bad you want to stop just be honest and damn well say so-reviews are objective and if, objectively, you find one too shit to finish THAT is what goes in the review. It's hardly unfair, is it? If it bored a gamer silly they'd sack it and there are OTHER reviewers out there who will fell differently anyway.

No, the important thing is being brutally honest when reviewing and not some odd sense of duty that means you must finish a game no matter how crap just to have an opion. if someone doesn't finish becaue a game was SO boring then THAT IS their opinion, no? Naturally, I mean more than, like, ten minutes of game!

What IS wrong is if people make out the DID play a whole game and didn't just so they can slope off and bash it but otherwise if a game's shit, too shit to play? Say so.

[Baka-akaB]

that's idealistic talk so pretty much impossible . We all know there are categories and games that will always start "slow" , ever since games stopped being primitive arcade reflexes games , and involved more and more plot , cinematics and dialogues .

I can only agree on the honesty part . If all you've touched is mostly the gameplay and look of the game , then dont pretend to know something about the story , it's potential , with or without twist you havent seen unfold . Wich is what most of those "incomplete reviewers" do .

As an example , I've seen numerous times those fake pull up the office sheet template "the story is your standard anime generic plot" , only to look stupid when something drastic happens in the plot changing everything , and hardly necessarily in the middle or toward the end .

[Paradise Lost]

Sorry Mr Zampella, your fucking ending for..all your games.. sucked, the story sucked in General.

[WLPowell]

Most reviews just play the game for an hour or two then throw out a review to get it out before anyone else for hits. I think they should complete the game first. That way, we'll have a lot less of those experiences where you finish a game and ask "what game did THEY play?"

[GraveKnight]

Modern Warfare 2 was an amazing game built with the constraints of a focused and powerful publisher trying to call the shots and push the game out a.s.a.p. You can see the rushed imprint all over the work. His complaint against reviews is completely justified, I always find a lack of in-depth info as a reason for not even returning to any website that doesn’t provide an accurate and full review. (INFORMED CONSUMER ALERT) Vince was fired for not pushing out shoddy product, you know…cough….cough….like a reviewer who tries to justify an apparent lack of dedication so the next hit will be theirs. Spare Me. I feel sorry for the chumps who will buy Black Ops, and the reviewers who will hand in an obvious hack job review for the next early playable copy. Respawn is the future. It's funny to see so many clever people....how's that working for you? Have you ever noticed all the bugs in "perfect score" games? The industry as a whole has gotten lazy, along with consumers who support low quality because the IP matters more than the quality. You get what you deserve.

[Xof]

But I normally only notice the reviews where, often it's evident the reviewer put very little time into the game, and gives the game a glowingly positive score. Remember all those great reviews Fable III got at release?

And then remember how we got the game, and played it to the end? Yikes.

Fallout 3 and DAO were similar in that respect.

And then there are the reviews where it seems that the reviewers didn't even bother to play the game to begin with--typically Japanese games. It's like they just watch a few videos, and then fill up their review with a bunch of nonsense about how Japanese games are inferior for not being "innovative." GI's Yakuza 3 was exceptionally bad for that.