Do game reviewers need to play 100% of the game?

[Kane99]

There was some recent backlash about a Cyberpunk 2077 review, where the person reviewing it, said she only played the story, and did not mess with upgrades, crafting, or anything else really. Her focus was just the game, and people kind of threw a fit about it. I think it's fair to call it a bad review if you don't try most of what's in the game. I don't think people expect someone to go 100% through a game, that's kind of impossible for reviewers. But I think testing out each feature is a must, because I view reviews as a selling point, and I want to know what I'm getting into. 

What do you guys think? Do you think reviewers should play the whole game? Or play the whole story at least, and try out each other aspect of the game? I'm for the latter. As long as a reviewer tests out each feature, I'm fine. I just want to know what I am getting with a game. It doesn't have to go into full on detail, unless the reviewer really wants to. 

A guide can be used for those who want a more indepth view of what the game is capable of. At least imo. What do you guys think?

 

[Empire]

They need to play until they have enough understanding of the game to really go in depth if they need to do a full review. There was a guy who reviewed a game and played 50hr across multiple accounts and got a ton of backlash for putting false info in his review. So how many hours would they need to play and how far they need to be to get the right reviews. Keep in mind that you can't please everyone. 

They should get those who played and stream the games that have done over 150 hours or more to make a full review. 

[killamch89]

Yes, you need to explore most if not all of the game and have a very good understanding of what the game is about before you release a review. You can't just play a couple of matches and base your review on that one aspect. Reviewers also need to be truthful because if you lie, others will find out anyways because they'd have access to proper reviews as well as gameplay walkthroughs so it's in the Reviewer's best interest to put out a detailed review.

[skyfire]

In reality they should play 100 percent. But a lot of game reviewers dont. And many of them gather opinion purely based on the few minutes of gameplay and initial story progression. Some just judge the graphics and move away. IGN folks kind of lazy like that. They dig out their own agenda and then review the content. A lot of reviews are dishonest like that. 

[The Blackangel]

If someone was to do a review of RDR2 and only moved the story forward and did nothing else, they would be leaving out more than half the game. There are stranger missions, treasure hunts, challenges, crafting/upgrading, legendary animal hunting/fishing, 2 dozen horse breeds, about as many guns, and so much more. Leaving all that out would make the game come off as extremely boring, and do nothing but harm instead of be a fair review. I could write up a fair review right now, and put bias in, but state first that "this part is bias" and then move on to an unbiased review, as I have played the entire game, sans online. Hell now that I think of it, I may get to work on that today.

Just so everyone knows, there WILL be spoilers, so if you haven't played it, but are wanting to, you will want to avoid my review.

[Empire]

Yes, there can be spoilers however it's the way that they can word there blogs and a way to have a good review without the need to and so much in death spoilers you know. When it comes to reviews you read the good and the bad points and those people that do game reviews help those people to make their minds up on will I get the game or not, or at least it's worth getting. But if you really want big bang spoilers, go on twitch and watch people playing and streaming the game. 

Maybe we should have members here start doing game reviews 🙂 

[Kane99]

17 hours ago, Empire said:

They need to play until they have enough understanding of the game to really go in depth if they need to do a full review. There was a guy who reviewed a game and played 50hr across multiple accounts and got a ton of backlash for putting false info in his review. So how many hours would they need to play and how far they need to be to get the right reviews. Keep in mind that you can't please everyone. 

They should get those who played and stream the games that have done over 150 hours or more to make a full review. 

I agree, I think it comes down to understanding what the game is, and what it can do. That's it. As long as the reviewer is aware of a mechanic, and shares details on said mechanics, and doesn't leave any details out, I think that's the route to take. 

Of course, not all reviewers can see everything, but I don't think they need to. I just think they need to touch every aspect of the game, they don't need to complete it 100%, but test the crafting, upgrading, the main weapons, gameplay, hacking, or whatever else may be in the game. The only thing I think that needs to be 100% completed, is the main story, but the rest of the game just needs to be tested once to give gamers an idea what they're in for. 

[The Blackangel]

18 minutes ago, Empire said:

Maybe we should have members here start doing game reviews 🙂 

I've spoken to @DC about submitting some reviews of classic games (NES, SNES, N64, etc.) but haven't yet, as I don't know if anyone here would even be interested in reading about some games they have most likely never even heard of. Not to mention that the games in question are a hell of a lot older than a lot of the members here.

[killamch89]

4 minutes ago, The Blackangel said:

I've spoken to @DC about submitting some reviews of classic games (NES, SNES, N64, etc.) but haven't yet, as I don't know if anyone here would even be interested in reading about some games they have most likely never even heard of. Not to mention that the games in question are a hell of a lot older than a lot of the members here.

It wouldn't hurt though because it may make some of us want to try out some of those games as well.

[Empire]

@DC seems that he has no choice to add it 😛 more of want it then more of us is willing to do so. As long as the content is active and being used rather than seeing empty categories. Just hopefully people is willing to write and read. You will have those that will be interested in reading and then others will skip to the good parts and not fully read it. If people are interested in the game then they will read all about it. 

4 minutes ago, killamch89 said:

It wouldn't hurt though because it may make some of us want to try out some of those games as well.

That be cool, Might be good for people and evs to get games of from each other. Also doesn't hurt that we make a review about the game on a video then a blog based.

 

 

[StaceyPowers]

Mostly I just care if the reviewer is HONEST about what they did and did not play of the game.

[killamch89]

2 hours ago, StaceyPowers said:

Mostly I just care if the reviewer is HONEST about what they did and did not play of the game.

Honesty and an unbiased review and I'm set. I just like them to go into details about the most important aspects of the game so that I can form a proper conclusion. For me, I tend to watch multiple reviews about an item/product and I look at what they say about it and cross reference they information they are providing.

[AndreiMirfi]

They need to play as much as they gain enough information and ideas for a very good review.

[The Burnout Kid]

I mean I would think so. How else are they going to review it right?

[Kane99]

On 12/17/2020 at 5:33 PM, StaceyPowers said:

Mostly I just care if the reviewer is HONEST about what they did and did not play of the game.

I agree. But I still think a reviewer should check out every aspect of the game at least once. They don't have to completely run through every aspect of the game, just see every aspect and report back. I just think those things should be tested out before giving the final review. But that's just me.