Then what of games like Skyrim? Surely there will be no legitimate reviews for it upon release because none of the Reviewers will have played every single mission in the game from start to finish. And yet you wont hear very many complaints from consumers. Do you know why?
People don't want to hear about how good the game is in total completion, people want to hear about how good the game is in the parts that matter the most, the journey to that finish point. What do you intend to learn from Jim completing the entire game? Do you think his opinion on how bad it is is magically going to change if he wastes more time on it?
Which brings it back to the main point: Consumers are looking for something entertaining as an experience, not just as a culmination of an entire piece. People don't have to 100% games like Skyrim or (as mentioned above) MMO's like World of Warcraft to gain a sense of what their core mechanics are and how fun the game plays. If the game doesn't make that evident enough within the first half of its duration, do you really expect consumer's to care enough to see if the other part is any better? Its game development 101, if you aren't catching in users within that critical time then its unlikely you will ever catch those users no matter how long your game is. This is the exact same things demo's seek out to accomplish, to show off the essence of a game in a short amount of time to help people figure out if they will be interested in the game.
But if this logic is not your cup of tea, then by all means go out there and create reviews for games you have 100%. I fully support the solution to your complaints, I just don't believe it would make any difference either way.
Thank you for not being a complete prick about. Too many people insult others just for the sake of insulting another's opinion. Your logic is just, truth be told.
I think the difference in MMO's is that there really isn't an "end" per se, rather an "end game" dungeon or raid, of sorts. There really isn't a true ending for those games, which means the gameplay has to hold up. A score has to be applied in this instance, I completely agree with you there.
Skyrim, on the other hand, has a ridiculous amount of hours on the main quest alone, not even counting those of the side quests/random dragon killing. So there's another gray area. If you play the main quest only, can you properly score it? In that instance, I wouldn't think so. There's still too much to see to properly score the game.
Conrad reviewed Dark Souls, but didn't finish it. He hadn't completed the story, but he felt that he had seen enough of the game to properly critique it. That doesn't really sit well with me. Sure, it's a huge game, but there's something about not completing the story line of a game that just kills me. That's the only point I'm trying to make. In that instance, and most definitely in this one, I feel like they both just said "Fuck it," and gave it a score.
Maybe in both of those cases they wouldn't have made any difference, but they get paid to do it, and I would expect them to finish them. That makes sense, right?
I totally get where you are coming from. I can see where for specific games where a lot of the appeal is in the plot and background that it would seem unfair to give a score without seeing it through. I myself have endured some games long after there mechanics got stale just for the sake of the plot which helped partially redeem it.
The problem is, you can't expect everyone reading the review to feel the same way. Sure, the reviewers have an obligation to do their best to complete the game, but if the game has legitimate problems that makes it hard to endure, do you think your viewers/the consumers will be willing to endure that? Ultimately, a review is a tool for which people gain an idea of the pros and cons of the game in hopes that it will help them determine how right that game is for them. That is why reviews for games such as Skyrim are valid: they are able to touch on those points and give people an idea of what the duration of their game experience will be like.
I would like to see more reviews where people can come to the table with an overall 100% assessment of the total game, but in all fairness the chances of that completion changing anyone's minds regarding the pros and cons of the game are fairly low. I'm afraid we are among the dying breed that enjoys a good plot above all :P
What am I missing here?
ITS A SHITTY POKEMON CASH IN. WHAT PETTY ASSHOLE ACTUALLY GIVES A FUCK IF HE FINISHED IT OR NOT?
Caps even.
The same holds true for this game. If Jim can rightfully conclude there's nothing more to gain from replaying this game, then who cares if he didn't finish it? I bought 99 Nights a few months back, and after playing through with 2 characters, I knew the game wasn't going to get any better. Sure I missed out on a few characters and their combos, but the game only changed aesthetically with a little bit of story thrown in. It's not like you can unlock Pokemon Grey by completing Rumble Blast, you're probably going to get a heartfelt Pokemon ending where everyone wins. Now Jim can go on to other games, articles and reviews that he has to do, because it's his job. His review would not have been any different if he finished the game, aside from having one less thing for people to get on his case about.
whats wrong with the mystery dungeon series? sure there not OMG AMAZING but there pretty good rogue-lites.
also, really disappointed that they didn't do much with this game, theres some potential for a good game.
I'll always remember an episode of 'Reviews on the Run' where Vic and Tommy were BASHING Smash Melee because OMFG THIS GAME HAZ NO DEPTH ITZ JUST A BUTTON MASHER LULZ WHEREZ MAH LIFEBAR?!? I DUN LIEK CHANGE!! When anyone who plays the game for a few hours can tell it's much MUCH more than that...
thanks a lot, now i gotta go dig up my freaking GBC version of that game and try (read: fail miserably) to play it again
So true. I wish Nintendo would stop whoring out the Pokemon brand.
Some spin-off games are good, like Snap, TCG and Pinball, but most of them are just crap. I don't understand why Nintendo can't pull its resources together and make a good spin-off game again.
btw I tried the GBC version (and the DS non-pokemon version) and none of them get as insane as playing the N64 version; the screens are just too small, I guess.
All that image above with the Mii winding up the Pikachu needs is the word "Rosebud" scrolled across the bottom.
Bam! Game of the year.
In closing...

Desain Rumah Minimalis
my main point is, it may seem like rubbish to you. thats because the game developers weren't aiming for your generation. i'm taking a video game design course in college so i'm studying this stuff. you can't judge a game so harshly when you're not even trying to look at it from another perspective.
my main point is, it may seem like rubbish to you. thats because the game developers weren't aiming for your generation. i'm taking a video game design course in college so i'm studying this stuff. you can't judge a game so harshly when you're not even trying to look at it from another perspective.

surf dtoid with 

Rising (10+)
People you follow





















follow
