-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Question for game journalists...
- Thread starter djtiesto
- Start date
Red Blaster
Member
10 minutes I'd wager.
Red Blaster
Member
Blackace said:
Well that may be, but I'd say that my guess was accurate for at least a few game journalists.
I'm not much of a game journalist these days, but back when I did some freelance work I'd make an honest effort to beat the games I reviewed. In the case of a particularly long or difficult game, I would do my best to get as much time as I could in before the deadline. I usually felt pretty confident that any unfinished game I reviewed was not going to seriously change in its mechanics or basic concept after the point I was forced to stop.
Ideally, we'd all beat the games and play through all of their modes before review, but in reality this simply can't be done.
Ideally, we'd all beat the games and play through all of their modes before review, but in reality this simply can't be done.
AFIK most of them complete everything they play - certainly a shooter, RPG or similar. there's no way, with deadlines and all that, to complete say, Forza, GT4 or even GTA San Andreas. And some companies don't give 'em enough time to do it. There's always a compromise. But frankly if they can't tell whether a game is worth buying by over halfway through it, then they probably don't know what they're talking about.
And there are exceptions. Lumines for example, is clearly awesome after ten minutes.
And the majority of 'em, I'd wager, make up their minds after half an hour, same as us.
And there are exceptions. Lumines for example, is clearly awesome after ten minutes.
And the majority of 'em, I'd wager, make up their minds after half an hour, same as us.
I try to do this. Always have. It's not always realistic, but then, I've been reviewing games for 10 years, so it doesn't always take a whole lot of time to know where my opinion is going to wind up. Nevertheless, I try to finish what I can, and if that's impossible, play as far as I can within the time alotted.jenov4 said:
FortNinety
Member
The worst for me was Mega Man Zero 3. I've always been a fan of the series... I owned parts 1 and 2 beforehand, but never beat them. I also found 3's difficulty near impossible. It too may way longer to beat that I want to admit.
Oh, and I beat Mega Man Network Transmission in one day just because there was no working battery so its not like I could stop and pick it up later. Making things worse was the need to play super conservative due to the fear or dying 30 hours in.
Oh, and I beat Mega Man Network Transmission in one day just because there was no working battery so its not like I could stop and pick it up later. Making things worse was the need to play super conservative due to the fear or dying 30 hours in.
It really depends on the game. When it comes to anything story-driven, if it's really interesting, I'll finish it before I write up my review; More for the sake of my enjoyment than anything else. Other sorts of games -- fighters, card based games, sports -- I'll spend anywhere from 5-10 hours on it before collecting my thoughts.
djtiesto said:
As ever, I agree with Stinkles. I try and beat every game I'm given to review. It's not always possible, given time limitations.
Sometimes, it's not even possible due to my own personal limitations. I was unable, for example, to finish the first Evil Dead game for the Sega Dreamcast. The respawning enemies and impossibly bad combat system forced me to stop after about four or so hours of play. Even in the first 10 minutes, I could more than tell the game was unplayable wreck of fetid piece of dog poop.
I generally try to finish every game and try to get a good feel for the unlockables before reviewing it. If it's simply not possible, I'll play until I'm certain how I feel for the game, but it's very rare that I can't finish something before I need to post a review, even for pretty long RPGs.
If it's a good game, I'll beat it just because I want to personally. Deadlines don't matter much since most games these days are 10-12 hours or so (I don't do RPGs or the like), and I can do that in a couple of days if the game is awesome. This is kind of a given, I think.
Crap games, on the other hand, I'll play 'til I just can't fuckin' take it anymore. I almost made it through all of Sonic Heroes (the extra awful PS2 version, no less!) -- now that's dedication!
Crap games, on the other hand, I'll play 'til I just can't fuckin' take it anymore. I almost made it through all of Sonic Heroes (the extra awful PS2 version, no less!) -- now that's dedication!
ToyMachine228
Member
I try my best to complete the game, unlock things, and whatnot...But if it's a really really bad game, that no one else is going to play...And we're talking like Charlier's Angels for the GameCube...Then you play it as long as you can stand, which is longer than anyone else who buys it is going to actually play it.
akascream said:
Journalist is nebulous considering it encompasses everyone from the people who review movies, plays, books, etc.; to the person who writes hard news stories about car crashes or murder cases; to the person who covers bake sales, pie-eating contests, and other "featury" stories.
In the case of game journalism, most of the people working for game publications are critics. There are plenty of people, however, who cover games who are capable of doing investigative pieces.
When I wrote for Gamefan if I didn't finish a game (which was rare) I would mention it in the review. It usually only happened with RPGs. I would always dedicate at least 8 or so hours to every game though. If a needs more than 8 hours for it to become enjoyable that's a pretty serious flaw imo.
Jonnyboy117
Member
I've beaten more crap games for review than I'd care to think about. RPGs are always tough, because the story is an integral part of the game, and you probably can't make a fair judgement of the story without playing through to the end, and that takes a really long time. I did it with Tales of Symphonia and Mario & Luigi. Didn't with Golden Sun because it bored the shit out of me.
Not being able to beat a game I feel is a very honest and legit commentary on the quality of the game itself, precisely for the reasons journalists are giving in this thread. I think it'd be great if reviewers mentioned this fact along with the reasons why they couldn't finish the game (time constraints, too horrible, etc).
Define type of journalism. You can be talking about people who are assigned a game to cover and article to produce, or people who play a game and are inspired by it (love or hate) to submit a request to cover it. I'd say the latter probably results in the better articles, and as such you probably only have to play as much of the game as it takes for you to form the opinion you think is worth putting down on paper. It's up to the reader to interpret whether the author really knows what he's talking about, though. But that's always the case, whatever you do.
boutrosinit
Street Fighter IV World Champion
john tv said:
What he said. After Ratchett 2, I try to beat games twice now, but that's for personal reviews, never for mags and sites and whatnot as the timing would be impossible.
All these "it's impossible to finish all games" comments make me wonder why games don't have fast foward and rewind functions. I don't know why developers think it's a good idea to limit how we play the game. I payed for gtasa, I should be able to replay my favorite missions and skip boring ones whenever I want. When I watch Castaway, I skip to the plane crash because the first half hour is boring, why can't I do that with ...a game with a boring first half hour that I can't think of right now..?
I usually make my reviewers and have myself finish games before reviewing them. The only games that I do not require something of the sort is for an MMO or something of the sort. However, there are times when it feels as if a game is so terrible that we shouldn't even attempt to finish it. That doesn't happen too often but I've run into the scenario in the past (Batman: Dark Tomorrow for instance).
Mr Nash
square pies = communism
I make a point to finish my games, if only because you never know how those last few stages / hours of the game may pan out. I just want to make sure that the publisher didn't rush the last bit of development on the game to get it on store shelves, consequently making the last bit of the game suck, despite how good the rest of it is.
Phoenix Dark
Banned
djtiesto said:
I try to finish the entire game before writing a review. Although I guess onw could just play a few hours to get the jest of the game, it's best to try to play all the way through. I'm reviewing MP2 right now. I'm like 40% done with it, and it's getting pretty tedious. I could just submit a review this week, but I'm trying my hardest to finish it first.
Barry Lightning
Banned
akascream said:
lol.
dude. i only hang with new game journalists.
Disco Stu said:
Well then, how about some more investigative shit? Seriously. Remember that article in the Dallas Observer that was a complete expose of ION Storm and basically blew the roof off everything? Holy shit that was awesome journalism. Where's stuff like that?
I'm not calling you a bunch of spineless pussies that are slaves to PR firms, because those are Japanese game writers. I'm just calling you spineless pussies.
FortNinety
Member
Barry Lightning said:
:lol :lol :lol :lol
Drinky Crow
Banned
I only review PC games, and mostly strategy ones at that. 20 hours or if the game has a clear end (like an RPG), I beat it once. That's it. I really need the time to figure out AI problems.
I've also been pushing for investigative journalism, but I still get the distinct feeling from most 'game journalists' that some of the professionalism and active stance involved with investigation (eg. just picking up the phone and calling whoever you need to call; how hard can it be?) has been dampened by the internet-central ideology. Even most interviews are performed by summarising IRC chat logs or email communication. And when it really gets to the meat of the stuff, like interviews with big name PR guys or developers, hardly anyone asks the right questions.
Being in the middle of nowhere in a shitty country in Europe, I also have no ability to really go after things I'd like to do -- you always get referred back to the European office, or told to just go by the press release. That and I'm basically a nobody with no contacts, which also doesn't help.
There are definitely some great pieces out there, but they weren't written by game journalists.. they were written by BBC News, Wired, CNN Money, and other examples of actual journalism. If these guys can put out decently investigative coverage and insight without even really being 100% dedicated game journalists, I can't help but imagine what kind of interesting articles could exist if the encyclopedias amongst us actually went out and did the work.
[/rant]
Being in the middle of nowhere in a shitty country in Europe, I also have no ability to really go after things I'd like to do -- you always get referred back to the European office, or told to just go by the press release. That and I'm basically a nobody with no contacts, which also doesn't help.
There are definitely some great pieces out there, but they weren't written by game journalists.. they were written by BBC News, Wired, CNN Money, and other examples of actual journalism. If these guys can put out decently investigative coverage and insight without even really being 100% dedicated game journalists, I can't help but imagine what kind of interesting articles could exist if the encyclopedias amongst us actually went out and did the work.
[/rant]
Yeah, investigative pieces in game journalism are rare because of the cozy relationship most game writers, websites, & magazines have with developers. They have to abide by NDA's and don't want to jeopardize a working relationship with folks who could potentially give them a big exclusive preview or first review down the road.
With major sites & magazines, the top brass probably would put the kabosh on any article that paints the publishers/developers involved in a bad light, or if they were asked specifically not to run the story. As for more independent freelance guys, they don't want to piss off the publicists & PR firms that supply them with review copies, preview code, access to developers and invites to trade events. Biting the hand that feeds and all that.
That's why real investigative writing in games comes from mainstream sources who don't really care if they burn bridges with the people making the games. They're don't need anything from them to stay in business. It's an unfortunate situation, as you mentioned... But I doubt it's going to change any time soon.
Similar threads
- Locked