do game reviewers actually play their review games to completion?

#1Spetsnaz420Posted 12/11/2013 4:00:40 AM
Im curious about this because playing through a portion of a game can leave a very bad taste in ones mouth...on more than one occasion I was disgusted with a game demo deciding I didn't like that game only to play the full game at a friends and end up loving it.
---
I don't conform to social convention
"Xbox people don't care about the truth, they only care about seamless multimedia streaming." - Stan Marsh
#2AjescentPosted 12/11/2013 4:03:32 AM
No always but you can sometimes tell the ones who do and the ones who don't.
---
I survived the Apocalyps3 and the Collaps3 and all I got was this lousy signature.
Xbox One: What are you doing Dave?
#3Jedi454Posted 12/11/2013 4:04:00 AM
I don't think they do to be honest with you. What's worse with the game rating system in reviews is that 5/10 is not considered average, but horrible instead. A 7/10 is considered average, so what reviews say is 70% is average, no 50% is average and they also often not complete everything in the game to pump out the review as quick as possible.
---
GT: DyingRoman
My Gaming channel: https://www.youtube.com/DyingRomanGaming
#4LapanuiPosted 12/11/2013 4:15:14 AM
I think game reviewers are on a tight schedule. They not only have more than one game to review, but most have to make videos for it and write out quite a big review for it, depending on the game or even console.

They are playing the game in it's base state, so it's most likely not been updated, so when we receive our games on release, we usually get an update to fix a few problems that couldn't be fixed and put onto disc. I don't think reviewers received those updates, I'm not sure though, as they can get the game a couple of weeks before release.

It depends on the game as well I guess. If a game is short, they can play through it and get an idea of how much they enjoyed the game, but most games can't be completed very quickly or give you enough time to really explore and get the most out of the game, like Skyrim, for instance. There is a lot to do in that game, there is no way a reviewer played through most of the content. What he/she played had played has obviously interested them and they enjoyed what they had played.

You also have to take into account that some publishers probably pay some reviewers to give them a good score. If you look back at every CoD game, there is no reason for it to get really high reviews. No one ever seems to mention how similar it is to previous installments, it always seems to be innovative or brings something new to the multiplayer, it's never any different, yet gets good review scores.
---
GT: Zichu PSN: Zichu NNID: Zichu1
#5ValimerPosted 12/11/2013 4:16:17 AM
50 percent isn't average. I believe they tend to use the same general scoring system that most schools use. 7 or 70% is what an average person should be able to attain, or in this case, a game. 5 or 50% is really quite poor in any scaling system and should never be considered anything close to well done.

I mean really, think about it. It's ridiculously easy to get 10,20,30,40 and even 50% on anything you apply yourself to. Scoring 70% is usually easy enough with minimal effort as well, but getting 80,90 and 100 is much more difficult and your margin for error is slim.

That being said, there are some cases where an average might be well below for 5 (50%) like in baseball where in 2004 the league average was .266. You're essentially suggesting that batting 133% is acceptable. This is on a much larger scale but history has shown that many games of different genres can and do score 10s so a 5 is quite bad.

I wasted WAY too much time on this with likely zero payoff.
---
Sent from my iPhone.
#6LapanuiPosted 12/11/2013 4:22:30 AM
In terms of general maths, 5 is about average, it's more like 5.5.

In terms of video games, 7 does seem to be the average, but that's probably because over time, the scores of games always seem to be in the 5 to 10 range. 5 being bad, 10 being flawless.

I'm the same though, when I see a game that gets 5 I think, that's got to be a bad game, but it's probably not. It's not very often I see a game get less than 5, maybe I'm just not looking hard enough.
---
GT: Zichu PSN: Zichu NNID: Zichu1
#7Spetsnaz420(Topic Creator)Posted 12/11/2013 4:32:40 AM
So do you think maybe they should state if the game reviewed played to completion and what point in development the game was in upon review?
---
I don't conform to social convention
"Xbox people don't care about the truth, they only care about seamless multimedia streaming." - Stan Marsh
#8LapanuiPosted 12/11/2013 4:36:49 AM
I think they should put that information down at the beginning of the review. For some people, it won't really bother them, for a lot of others, they will take that information into consideration.

I have to bring up Hitman Absolution for this. It's a game I didn't enjoy, but I got it on release day. To begin with, it was alright, but after a while it became tedious. Now, a reviewer wouldn't have played through the whole game and wrote thier review based on the final product. They would have played like 2 levels, had great fun and that's it, so they never played the whole thing and thought that it could be tedious or one of the best games they have ever played. Yet, it got good to great reviews.
---
GT: Zichu PSN: Zichu NNID: Zichu1
#9The_RaterPosted 12/11/2013 5:22:46 AM
Yep your theory is 100% spot on TC. Playing the game from start to finish can really give you a much valued opinion than just playing the game for an hour or so.