After playing Bioshock 2 for several hours, a day before its launch, my friend decided to write a review for it (which was very good I might add). Subsequently, an argument ensued between both of us today where I suggested that the review of a game should not be written until it has been entirely completed…
Perhaps it’s from my years of reading PC Zone, and their mantra that a game should not be reviewed until the credits roll, or perhaps it’s the years of disappointment from playing games that on the surface appear promising, until a distinct lull several hours in reveals its short comings. Either way, I’m not entirely comfortably with such early reviews (although not entirely dismissive of the practice).
Using the original Bioshock as an example, the opening sequence remains one of my favourites within any videogame, while the twists and turns throughout the games story (irrespective of play time) are still fully enjoyable. However, what became apparent as I played the game at greater length is the shortcomings I initially overlooked. The abundance of player resources, the lack of death penalty, the predictability of enemies, the dull and time consuming hacking, redundant plasmids and their power balance, and the general game descending into another shoot-em-up.
Now don’t get me wrong, I loved Bioshock. But these issues only struck me as issues after playing the game for a long period of time and more notably towards the end of the game. If I was to review the game based on my first several hours, I would no doubt have heaped praise on its ingenuity. However, if you asked me my opinion after completing the game, I would have still praised what it achieved, but would have been much more critical in my approach once the shine had actually worn off.
So, my question to you out there is:
“Should you write a review for a videogame, without having completed it?”
No, I don’t think you should. I grew more and more and more disappointed with Bioshock as I played through, praying for the ending to come after the premature climax. I say wait.
I always thought this is more true for positive reviews than negative reviews. If I hate a game in the first two or three hours, there is no way that game can make up for it, and I’m perfectly justified in expressing my hate immediately. Generally if I am going to praise a game, I finish it to make sure the good parts stick. Often they don’t.
The more you like a game, the more important it is that you finish it or at least come close to finishing it.
I’ve played more than my fair share of games that seem great an hour, two hours, or even three hours in that suddenly do something soul-crushingly horrible. I’ve played games where a minor nuisance in the beginning becomes a major annoyance as the game goes on and prevents me from fully enjoying the experience.
On the other hand, games that start out bad rarely get better. I’m quick to dismiss games sometimes, though I wouldn’t write reviews of them, for doing things early on. If I really want an informed opinion I will play a game for as long as I can tolerate it, but I won’t complete a game that is bad just for the sake of completion. However, I would be very honest at what point I stopped and I would pithily respond to anyone that I am not going to spend another 6 hours with a bad game to see an awesome ending.
I think a good rule of thumb is that a game that starts strong can always become terrible but a game that starts terrible will rarely get better.
Hi all. Regular reader, first time commenter!
I’m the person in question on Lewis’ article.
Where I stand with my decision to review BioShock 2 is that several hours into the game, I feel that I am personally in a suitable enough position to talk about the various gameplay nuances and how the game plays in a constructive way. Particularly as for large parts of that gameplay, very little has changed from it’s predecessor.
Going on Lewis’ example above, I am not the sort who has to play and finish a game before I can identify it’s flaws. Yes there is an initial glow about almost all good games that will prevent people from perhaps picking up on some of it’s flaws mid play through, but for a game like BioShock, largely linear and singular in it’s gameplay, I believe most of the obvious flaws are clear during play. Unlike Lewis’ claims above (a claim I don’t genuinely think Lewis even means), I largely knew of and still have the same grievances with BioShock’s gameplay that I had upon first play through. Personally for me, those being the rather loose combat, vita-chambers and one or two individual sections of the story/location which I feel aren’t as strong as others. They were my main grievances from my first play-through onwards.
Infact, in this particular example, I was probably at my most cynical with BioShock on my first play through. It’s a game I’ve since completed more times than I can recollect, but it’s a game I consider to get better every time. It wasn’t until my 2nd or 3rd play through that I truly understood or appreciated Rapture or the games culture, and it wasn’t until then that I started to consider it one of my favorite games of all time, having let issues about the game stop me from doing so first time around.
Having explored several hours of BioShock 2, it’s a game that follows a similar pattern and in all honesty changes little. In terms of what the game does better than the original, it only takes an hour or two to see what the improvements are; particularly for someone so familiar with the original game. Changes are generally subtle at the best of times, but it’s those changes that make up the main body of my review.
As for what’s bad? Well, although I don’t know yet how the game will pan out, I already know that the character and charm of the game suffers. Rapture isn’t as captivating on second visit, the new cast of characters aren’t as strong or engaging and the game generally isn’t as fresh. Some of that is unavoidable simply by being a sequel, but it’s there nonetheless. Those are all things that I know to be true from what I’ve played so far. Is there an Andrew Ryan sized twist coming later? I suspect so. I even have my suspicions about what that twist will entail. Do I think it will be game breaking/making on the basis of what I already know about the story and (loosely – through being caught up in the odd spoiler) know of what is to come? No.
To that end, especially given that BioShock 2’s story makes up an incredibly small – and crucially spoiler free – part of my review, I don’t think there are many if any benefits to playing through to completion that I could have incorporated into my review. I feel that the hours I have already invested into BioShock 2 give me a broad understanding of the gameplay, game mechanics and feel of the game 2K Marin have crafted, and thus I feel comfortable enough to comment.
Without going into detailed spoiler territory about the story, which would be necessary to talk about if the gameplay suddenly dipped as a result of such a negative twist, I don’t feel I would be able to incorporate anything further about the plot into my review. I share an opinion with Lewis about spoilers and thus don’t want to be the one to put them out into the open.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, for sure. If it transpires that something drastic does happen, then I will edit the review or re-post my second opinion. However, I genuinely wouldn’t have written my review “early” if I thought this was going to happen. Incidentally, I write this comment having just removed myself from another several hour stint in Rapture, progressing even further into the story. At this point, there is still nothing in my review I am prepared to amend because of a “twist” to the game and I stand by my original piece. In terms of the issues covered in my personal review – mostly combat, other subtle changes, the games atmosphere and a brief overview of the characters – there is nothing I feel needs to be changed from my original comments.
I’m probably waffling at this point but, i’d like to try and get my POV across. Thank’s for reading this rather long winded ramble, tear my decision apart at your leisure.
The only responsibility a reviewer has (in my humble opinion) is to honestly disclose how long he/she HAS played it. If a game drives you off after ten minutes, don’t review it. After four hours… well, you’ve got a basis for your viewpoint, provided you state that you’ve only played for four hours.
Videogames are not movies. You don’t have the right to walk out of a 200-minute film 127 minutes in and review it. But films are not experiential in the way games are.
I feel 100% confident in my review of GTA IV, despite the fact that I didn’t finish it. Same for Oblivion. Finishing isn’t some magic bullet; in movies, seeing the end is what matters. In games, it’s the experience – taken as a whole – that matters.
It really depends on the game. As for a story driven experience such as Bioshock 2, I’d say yes, you’d have to complete it before reviewing it. There’s not much to do outside of the storyline in Bioshock and Bioshock 2 is, by what I’ve played of it so far, the same. So, reviewing it without completing a styoryline is not really advisable from where I stand. Games like GTA, though, where following the storyline is but one way to play it, I’d say it’s less important. Reviewing something like Tatsunoko vs. Capcom without finishing the storyline for every character, that’s cool as well. These are games where rules are king, and that’s what you’re reviewing. In Bioshock rules are playing a second fiddle to the storyline and ambiance and that’s one of the reasons it reviewed so favourably. Its ruleset and its implementation really leave a lot to be desired, but its architecture and storyline kinda made up for it for a lot of people.
So, er, in this case, the answer is “no”.
That won’t stop me from writing a rant about it in the next couple of days tho.
I don’t think there is a hard and fast rule. The last game I reviewed, Risen, shifted on me completely in the second half, nosediving and dropping nearly two notches. But had I reviewed Dragon Age early on I would have scored it at least a notch lower than I would have upon finishing it. Personally I have to be careful about first impressions cause they often seem wrong in retrospect. So I lean toward finishing a game and if you don’t I want to know that you didn’t.
It is often said that designers put much less attention to the final act of their games because very few players and reviewers actually get there.
I think I’m probably somewhere between Meho and Steerpike’s view point now. I completely understand my friends arguments, I was being far too single minded to suggest that all games should be completed before reviewing them. As you’ve said Steerpike, it’s the experience – taken as a whole – that matters.
While I completely understand where you are coming from Meho. Where a story driven experience is predominant, I would still lean towards completing it. As Mike has pointed out, opinions can nose dive on the game dependant on how a game pans out, and by playing for a limited number of hours you may not encounter those flaws.
@ Mat “I am not the sort who has to play and finish a game before I can identify it’s flaws.”
I really would counter that claim and its not the discussion i’m making. Sometimes identifying flaws is only possible after extensive prolonged play. I would still argue that in the original Bioshock, without having played the game for many hours, you would not be able to notice how repetitive and unnecessary the hacking becomes as at first, it is highly enjoyable. Fifty cameras in however?…
Nor would you be able to tell without extended play how the game was to descend into another run of the mill shoot-em-up where any tactical approach towards any enemies goes out the window. Its not a necessity to complete the game to notice these things however, but they do only become apparent after lengthy plays.
Some good discussion all 🙂
Oh and Steerpike, I read your GTA review. Absolutely loved it, and was at first stunned at your 2/5 until I read it! 😀 I would say 50 hours played time is more than enough though, surely? 🙂
I agree with Steerpike. It’s all about disclosure. Say up front that you’ve only played the game for X number of hours and haven’t finished it yet. And, instead of calling a full-fledged review, call it “Frist Impressions” (we’ve had a few on here already) or something like that and reserve the right to alter your views later.
I came across a review on Kotaku last week for “Blood Bowl” on the 360. While the conclusion was right: the game is not good, the reasoning was all wrong. It was very clear (and I think the reviewer only admitted to it in an indirect way) that he had only played it a couple of times. I was annoyed at the review since it really didn’t get to the meat of all the issues with that game actually were. So, there are definitely pitfalls to this approach, so disclosure is key.
Disclosure, sure…why not. Not many people would admit to how much they play games though.
None of that matters though. What matters if it is informed. If you have glaring errors and factually incorrect writing, then you have not played enough of the game.
You can never play too much of the game of course. Multiplayer games are a big thing in this – I mean, how much is “to completion” there?
So, it is a case of having to have played enough to be informed. I must admit that with no other resource to guide you, a review also might want to include notes that it nosedives part way through, but is still enjoyable (just not as much) or ends unsatisfactorily (comment on inevitable sequel setup here), or even that it drives up difficulty so much it is near-impossible to finish (only a few games get this right). There is some justification to this being more and more necessary, but it can be left out if the reviewer doesn’t want to put it in (although why they would…hmm).