[Mush xx]

This is a controversial subject and probably will drum up a few different opinions. As a reviewer I try and complete a game or at least as much of the game possible before reviewing it. This is because sometimes a game will change dramatically near the end and that the game had taken the developers a long time to develop. I believe a gamer isn't getting the full picture if I don't, plus my opinion on the game may differ as I get further into the game.

Now, this comes at a price. Obviously doing it this way I'm not reviewing as many games as quickly as others and they do take a while to do.

In your opinion would you rather a reviewer had completed a game before reviewing it and to wait or are you happy to read a review which someone has only played a game for a few hours and got it up quicker?

[JasonA]

For me, it depends on timescale as well as the game itself. If I am sent a review copy of a game before release then I like to get it out as close to the release date as possible (embargo permitting) because that's when it's likely to get most hits. If I also feel that if playing the game further is not going to alter the game play, the experience - then I see no need for completion unless you are including spoilers in the review.

For Batman, I didn't play it to the end because I felt I gained enough info from what I put in to be able to write a review on how it plays, how it looks etc; but for GoldenEye 007: Reloaded I was having to compare it in ways with the 1997 original and so played that until the very very last end of level boss (which I couldn't kill in 97 - and still can't now haha). I was also sent a review copy of Modern Warfare 3, and whilst I don't need to play much online to get a scope of how it plays if I cover all the options, I think with the campaign it needs to be completed though. People will want to know about campaign length, mild surprises, how it measures against MW2 - so I generally think it depends on the game as well as what information the reviewer needs from each game to get a good knowledge of it.

I also reviewed Tropico 4 and to complete that would have taken me years, it's a lengthy strategy game and I played about 20hrs worth and considered it enough for review even though I was no way near complete - but completing it wouldn't have made my review any better or worse, I'd have just spent more hours doing pretty much the same thing. I'm probably rambling on, but I think overall it depends on what content you want to include in the review and if the reviewer feels he/she gained enough knowledge to warrant not needing extra gameplay.

I am happy to read others reviews if they haven't completed a game either, but I am beginning to wonder if perhaps reviewers should state in reviews now if they completed the game to completion or not! It might make the reader aware that there could potentially be other area's or aspects to the game not covered in enough depth.

This post has been edited by JasonA: 08 November 2011 - 03:17 PM

[Mush xx]

Yes I think they should state whether they have completed the game or even gone through again as quite a few reviews I have read have missed aspects of the game I feel are important.

As with Batman this is changing a fair bit as I get deeper into it, the gameplay and overall feel, it is such a huge game. If you get time carry on playing as when you complete it other things open up. Also the characters from the DLC, Catwoman and Nightwing have different gameplay and so I have bought these two.

It's not about completing them to put spoilers in them (these should be marked as such too), like I said sometimes as you upgrade the character, buy new parts or get near the end of games the gameplay does change, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse and this should reflect in the review. By not completing them it's rather like someone buying a car which only does 50 Miles then conks out, but as the driver has only reviewed the first 20 they wouldn't know that.

This is the problem I think, reviewers are just after hits and will rush them out rather than give the game the time it deserves. I myself am not happy to read reviews which have been rushed just for hits and would rather read a review by someone who has played the game to death lol

P.S I really think the game's PR should put a special achievement/ trophy in the game which is where they expect the reviewer to at least get to before reviewing the game, they have the technology to do so and would give the gamer a much better idea of the game.

[Mechanical R]

Mush xx, on 08 November 2011 - 03:38 PM, said:

Yes I think they should state whether they have completed the game or even gone through again as quite a few reviews I have read have missed aspects of the game I feel are important.

IMO spoliers should NEVER be in a review. Your supposed to be telling someone if its worth playing. More importantly, if its worth buying, so why tell them everything that happens?

Quote

As with Batman this is changing a fair bit as I get deeper into it, the gameplay and overall feel, it is such a huge game. If you get time carry on playing as when you complete it other things open up. Also the characters from the DLC, Catwoman and Nightwing have different gameplay and so I have bought these two.

Batmans gameplay never changes, its just more is added to it as you progress, reguardless of the upgrades n such theres nothing really throughout the game which means you need to have completed it, I could have written a review for it by the time I'd knocked out Penguin to be fair since it gave me more than enough to talk about which represents the game. DLC doesnt count either since its not apart of the game from the get go.

Its always nice to get games out on release day, that is the ideal point of it all, but i never get them before release lol

[Mush xx]

Mechanical R, on 08 November 2011 - 03:49 PM, said:

DLC doesnt count either since its not apart of the game from the get go.

DLC in Batman does, as Catwoman is free DLC which comes with the game and so should be reviewed with the game (although with review copies she didn't for some reason).

Penguin part is just the beginning TBH and I feel the gameplay and overall feel is changing, so I guess that's an opinion lol

[Mechanical R]

I wouldnt say it changes, it grows yeah. But the gameplay doesnt change so much that it would warrant you to have to document it. Sure theres plenty to do, but everything in the game so far (Im just after the Ras Al Ghul bit now) still feels like the Batman game i played before and am currently playing. Which isnt a bad thing mind.

And oh, shurrup about Catwoman

[Mush xx]

Mechanical R, on 08 November 2011 - 04:34 PM, said:

And oh, shurrup about Catwoman

LOL some people actually like Catwoman more than Batman! She's more agile and more fun to play.

[MrNinjaTree]

75% of the main game, then you've covered easily enough to be able to review it

[callum89]

Catwoman was not more agile . Everytime you tried to swing to a new building she hit halfway up and had to bounce the rest of the way, she just didn't have batmans style.