regarding that... would you guys say you can even review a game if someone didn't finish it.?
-
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.
Nioh embargo lifts on February 2nd (+ game size)
- Thread starter rockman zx
- Start date
regarding that... would you guys say you can even review a game if someone didn't finish it.?
BigEmil
Junior Member
As more of an impressions so far up to this point would make sense and to say what they haven't yet discovered or fully explored yet the systems etc and more to uncover
bargeparty
Member
I'm gonna need a bigger HDD for all these games...
Acquiescence
Member
Unless a game is unspeakably broken, I think a critic should finish a game before they write their final impressions. God knows I've played plenty of games that started off great but took a dip in quality near the end, or significantly outstayed their welcome.
Holundrian
Unconfirmed Member
My stance absolutely not, no matter how much some people in the industry bullshit about it with statements you can clearly have an opinion on the game after X hours.
Nobody debates that you can have an opinion. You can also clearly have an opinion on something after playing it 10 minutes. But for me personally I will not accept that as a opinion worth looking at when you frame it as a review if you have not finished the game.(I got 0 problems with opinion pieces that clearly frame themselves. I only have a problem with reviews that showcase they have not finished the game. The most garbage ones being not mentioning it and I have to catch it on their podcast that the reviewer didn't finish.)
Honestly for Nioh finishing is like the base line in my opinion. It's possibly a rather complex game that could break in weird ways or even offer surprising stuff only to people that give it the time it deserves.
My favorite example still I know it's been a few years but Diablo 3. Anyone that would have managed to reach inferno should have immediately judged several core systems of the game as fundamentally broken. But because some reviewers got massive ego issues/outlets being forced to hit embargo and place more value in putting their opinion out instead of actually informing the consumers we got that fucking shit mess of reviews.
And it goes both ways imagine reviews on Bravely Default(a game I adore and respect for the decisions it made despite enjoying them considerably less) that only would play until the first half. It would be bs to not inform people of the second half that can be quite the slog.
Kazuo Hirai
I really want everyone to know how much more Titanfall 2 sold than Nioh. It was a staggering amount.
What the fuck ?
Averages? But that is with endlessly replaying the same levels over and over. Not really what they are talking about, presumably, when they mention 70 hrs.
Yeah exactly my opinion...
I have done many reviews, and I have always made sure to "finish" the games before posting a review. Fortunately I write for a small independent site, so I make my own embargo (though I never break an embargo)..
I have written for bigger sites where there was a strict deadline, and it sucks when you have family life, normal work etc. that comes in the way..
I liked the scene better some years ago, where review copies were sent weeks (sometimes even a month or 2) before the embargo. I remember playing Vita versions of Little Big Planet and Tearaway months in advance.. which made me enjoy the games even more.
I get why they send them late.. but damn it sometimes makes a game hard to enjoy.
Chaos2Frozen
Member
What does 'finish' means? Platinum? All 100 sub missions? A character with every build? That's unreasonable.
For Nioh I would say you only need to achieve one of three things, either:
1) Complete the Main story
2) Played for more than 40 hours
3) Reached Level 100 (only because that's the trophy)
Doing any one of the above would probably cement your opinion of the game. Asking them to go any further would rarely change people's minds.
For Nioh I would say you only need to achieve one of three things, either:
1) Complete the Main story
2) Played for more than 40 hours
3) Reached Level 100 (only because that's the trophy)
Doing any one of the above would probably cement your opinion of the game. Asking them to go any further would rarely change people's minds.
you're not wrong =)
could it be compression of images and audio...
or 4k stuff??/
Finished... like got to the ending in the game..
and if the game has online play, make sure to test as much as possible.
Kazuo Hirai
I really want everyone to know how much more Titanfall 2 sold than Nioh. It was a staggering amount.
Chaos2Frozen
Member
Right so complete the main story? I can agree with that. If it's not possible for whatever reason, I wouldn't be too rigid with it as long as the review is upfront about it.
BigEmil
Junior Member
Not really. Texture sizes and everything can vary alot between games and what they compress and prioritise etcetc and how their game engines and how they choose to compile them can be different also Nioh texture quality file sizes and all is quite less than what was in Bloodborne for example which is clearly evident
Karak
Member
They should. Unless there is some technical issue a game needs to be finished to be reviewed. I mean many classics, as well as some titles with poor middle and end gameplay mechanics or quality dropoffs would not be found by folks that didn't beat the game.
yes.. complete the main story. Try all the online modes, and play some side missions.
VolticArchangel
Member
Absolutely cannot wait. Save your talismans, Team Ninja. This is your rebirth in the industry.
.
Still believe in a Ryu and Muramasa cameo with some time portal deus ex machina and this IP to be a part of Gaiden-verse
Man...finishing this game in that short of time? Seems insanely difficult to impossible unless it's literally the only thing you do for days.
Holundrian
Unconfirmed Member
That's a good question and I think it depends on the game. Diablo 3 for example is the type of game where it is not sufficient to finish the game once.
Given that I don't exactly know how Nioh shakes out structurally but assuming what we got in the demos and scaling that up to a full game I think finishing all missions, testing a few twilight missions once to see how/if boss mechanics change in meaningful ways, test online.
Kind of what Hanmik said seems to be the an acceptable baseline for me given what I know. Reaching level 100 or platting I don't see as necessary rly.
But it also depends on the reviewer. Some people just pick up systems and the way they interconnect faster, others need more time to experiment. Ideally everyone gets the baseline and then spends as much time as they need to explore whatever there is to explore for them to share what they want to share about the game that they think will benefit consumers.
Things I would be interested in reading about:
- How much depth does the stat system on items offer? Is there real choice there or are there a set of stats that are clearly a lot better than anything else.
- What's the feeling on build variety? Major bonus points for any review that spends the time to try exploring at least 1 weird character build/s and see how viable it/they can be.
- Any mechanics that are way too easy to exploit? One such example to me would be the spear sweep in the second beta.
False Witness
Member
You know what, I'm so used to the structure of the demos, that I have no idea how I'm actually going to play through the main game. Will I play through each stage a couple of times to get used to it or will I just go from mission to mission and then come back later?
I think the credibility of the writer matters more than finishing the game.
If you're someone thats known to not give a shit about games and not finish the game, then its hard to trust you.
On the other hand, if you've put in 30-40 hours in the week, and its reasonable to draw a conclusion on whether the game is good or not, I don't think seeing the credits roll makes the review any less valid.
Therefore - read reviews from writers you trust.
EDIT: Also I think my comments are really directed to those guys who get review copies of games and then play 5 hours, make a 5 minute video and give it a thumbs up and then bolt the hell out. It's just disrespecting reviewing and gaming in general.
Kazuo Hirai
I really want everyone to know how much more Titanfall 2 sold than Nioh. It was a staggering amount.
When you say you "finish" a game, at least "1) Complete the Main story"
You are familiar with the current understanding of how PSN downloads work, yes?
Yu Narukami
Member
Did you get a review copy? Are you enjoying it 😄?
That really mean nothing.
I know .. Ahem..
False Witness
Member
I'm desperate to hear impressions and I honestly have no idea why considering I've played 40+ hours of this myself.
DarknessTear
Banned
Are there any solid ki pulse guides on YouTube?
Already Torn
Banned
I want to say DS3 might be 70 hours if it's your first DS game
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
Has there been any word on whether or not PS+ is required in order to summon revenants?
I don't mind not being able to summon co-op help, but the revenant system is really useful and awesome.
I don't mind not being able to summon co-op help, but the revenant system is really useful and awesome.
I didn't beat Persona 4 when I reviewed it. I was 110 hours in and at the end boss, so I really didn't feel like my opinion was going to change at all at that point.
It really depends on the game. Your goal should always be to beat a game before reviewing it, but in all of the years I've been doing reviews, I've had countless situations where sinking in an extra handful of hours to beat it changed nothing. There have been tons of games where how I was feeling in the first five hours was how I felt in the last fiveand then there are those occasional games where getting to the end really changed things, and had I reviewed it before that point, I would have had a much different opinion.
Holundrian
Unconfirmed Member
That alone should be enough to just void any kind of bs justification for not finishing a game for review.
¯\_(ツ
_/¯That doesn't mean I don't understand certain realities around deadlines, but the argument of "my opinion wasn't going to change anyway with 99%" is fucking garbage from a consumer standpoint. And it is that attitude that has burned me hard on reviews in general to the point that I only consume them as timekiller entertainment.
That said again as long as people make a point to be very clear about those things I got no problem with it. When you don't talk about it or think it's ok to not mention it at that point I feel it's pretty dishonest.
Agreed. If you are upfront about it, you can review everything you have played up until that point. But calling it a game review would be sort of wrong, I guess? I can't review a book I didn't finish, but I can say I didn't like what I read, so I quit. If the game, book or whatever is good enough, you're likely to finish it anyway.
I have had enough games where I sort of knew what I was in store for after a few hours, and I seem to quit those games after those said few hours. I've quit Last Guardian though, because I found it a bit boring, but I will refrain from saying that I didn't like the game. I just found it hard to pick up, and when I did, I quit after five minutes because I just found it all a bit passive for my taste.
It's a tricky one though, and I would prefer a game to be reviewed on it's whole of course. But a "guys! Haven't finished Nioh yet! But fuck, if you love this and that, you will love it!" is okay anyway.
That alone should be enough to just void any kind of bs justification for not finishing a game for review.
¯\_(ツ
That doesn't mean I don't understand certain realities around deadlines, but the argument of "my opinion wasn't going to change anyway with 99%" is fucking garbage from a consumer standpoint. And it is that attitude that has burned me hard on reviews in general to the point that I only consume them as timekiller entertainment.
To be clear, I specifically said that people should beat games when reviewing them—I'm just stating the truth of what beating a game means from years of doing them. Game "completion" isn't anywhere close to the only factor that should be used when deciding if a person can review a game or not, because I've seen plenty of cases where people beat a game without really understanding said game, or you've got genres like fighting games or rhythm games where you can "complete" the game and that means absolutely nothing in the long term. And, as has already been mentioned, we're getting into murkier and murkier territory with what it means to legitimately beat a game with all of the side content, extra stuff, trophies, DLC, and so on that more and more games are getting. AND, then you throw on top of that online multiplayer, and how many people don't actually touch that stuff for plenty of games when reviewing them.
In the case of Nioh, I would expect at least a handful of reviews to not hit embargo. I'm not expecting mine to, at the least.
Holundrian
Unconfirmed Member
Nothing that I disagree with given that I already stated it depends on the game citing Diablo 3 as a game where just beating it is not sufficient.
I'm more criticizing the case where beating a game can mean nothing is used as a crutch justification for all games to skip out on giving a game it's proper time. And I've read a few reviews over the years where that was the case and again it's been infuriating when I then hear on the podcast that reviewer X has not beaten the game despite not making that clear in his joke piece that he deems worthy to call review.
The most recent Sim City is another case of a game where a lot of reviewers called it a day after some 7-8 hours which was honestly a fucking joke.
That game too was super broken in many ways and I regard it as pretty shameful how many big outlets have not caught onto that.
Also this comes very much from a place that kind of thinks that a majority of reviews are already pretty shallow to read, it being very rare to read something insightful. It has only become more apparent with some people taking the time to do proper long form criticism on certain games.
And I don't expect reviews to have parity with that given the time spent on those compared what reviews have to work with makes it unfeasible but it certainly wouldn't hurt if I at least had the feeling that reviews are doing their best to aspire to that.
singhjeet29
Member
I can very much see this happening. Having played the demo's. I absolutely cannot wait to play more of this.
Frag Waffles
Member
I hope it reviews well but it's getting purchased regardless. I've put more time across the 3 demos than entire games.
False Witness
Member
I'm starting to feel bad about buying this for only $25. Eh, I'm sure Best Buy paid full price for it.
Theslammer
Member
On a similar note, I hope the embargo for Horizon: Zero Dawn lifts early as well.
I may have to postpone Nioh as I have Final Fantasy XV still in the wrap from Christmas and I'd like to be my next game after Gravity Rush 2.
I may have to postpone Nioh as I have Final Fantasy XV still in the wrap from Christmas and I'd like to be my next game after Gravity Rush 2.
I think he's discussing file size, which DS3 is only 21GB, though tht doesn't really mean much in terms of game length. I do have a feeling Nioh will be longer though.
Kudo
Member
I made a celebratory gif, but I'll be posting it in the review thread.. Please be excited.
Based on the demo I can see reviewers criticizing the graphics and maybe some balance aspects, but it felt like a quality game at every turn, and if they maintain that through to the end it should review well. I'm glad that they are confident in it, looking forward to it more every day.
Sparrowhawk
Member
Probably going to get a mid 70's Metascore but I'm so hyped it doesn't even matter at all. It was such a great move of them to let us play the game three different times before release.