Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Locker
Play ListsSTATUS
I don't want to argue with people regarding the amount of playtime someone "needs" to make to write a review of a game... AGAIN. -_-
Ratty524- 04/14/2016 01:41 AM
Posts 
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
CloseThen don't?
author=Sooz
Then don't?
Just venting, really. I'm just getting tired of seeing this mentality persist for as long as I've been in this community. Honestly, if someone can't sit through more than 2 hours of a game that means your game sucks, and a review that manages to point out just about everything wrong within that span of time is justified for existence.
Hell, I'd extend that further and say that if you're not engaged with a game in 20 minutes, the game sucks. The fastest way to identify an incompetent developer is when they belt out the "it gets better" line.
I love when apologists for terrible games get defensive about it, too, blaming the player for being impatient instead of the game for having wretched pacing.
When I review games, I force myself to sit through at least 2 hours no matter how bad it is, but if I haven't committed to doing a review, I'll usually drop a game in 20 minutes if it's putting me to sleep.
I love when apologists for terrible games get defensive about it, too, blaming the player for being impatient instead of the game for having wretched pacing.
When I review games, I force myself to sit through at least 2 hours no matter how bad it is, but if I haven't committed to doing a review, I'll usually drop a game in 20 minutes if it's putting me to sleep.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
Eh, everyone has their moments. That's one of the worst things about putting up with it for so long. You've seen it countless times, and they've (usually) only experienced it once.
EDIT: The frustrating part is that another game could really use the buzz BW's getting. Like, any other game.
EDIT: The frustrating part is that another game could really use the buzz BW's getting. Like, any other game.
eplipswich
2728
Yeah, I guess the not-so-good thing about the Buzz Score is that it also includes negative buzz? :/
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=Ratty524
Honestly, if someone can't sit through more than 2 hours of a game that means your game sucks, and a review that manages to point out just about everything wrong within that span of time is justified for existence.
Eh, I def. agree that a review is valid enough if a person can't make it past like 2 hours, but at the same time, different things hold different people, so it doesn't necessarily mean the game sucks, just that it sucks at being the game that person wants to play.
(That said, BW looks p. bad just from the description and screenshots. I just am addicted to pedantry.)
ETA: Ahahaha Mad Father came up in discussing the game's intro length and that was the game I was thinking of because I gave up on it after like five minutes of intro cutscene. That definitely sucked at being a game I wanted to play. :V
I personally try to only review games that I've completed or come damn close to at least half-way through. But that's only out of trying to keep a sense of integrity. Its probably not a good strategy because I have hardly written any reviews.
I don't think there's anything wrong with writing a review that gives your first impressions of a game. First impressions are very important: If its bad, then that means improvements can and should be made. This is good stuff to know as a developer.
A good game is like a catchy beat. If the song has a good hook, you'll be more inclined to see where its going before changing the station.
I don't think there's anything wrong with writing a review that gives your first impressions of a game. First impressions are very important: If its bad, then that means improvements can and should be made. This is good stuff to know as a developer.
A good game is like a catchy beat. If the song has a good hook, you'll be more inclined to see where its going before changing the station.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
Honestly I feel like the review time argument is burying the lede, which is that dude made a freakin sockpuppet review.
Also his buddies making "OH THIS GAME LOOKS GREAT!" comments on the game page to perpetrate like people would want to play it.
I swear, horror games and RPGs attract all the bad writers. All of them.
Also his buddies making "OH THIS GAME LOOKS GREAT!" comments on the game page to perpetrate like people would want to play it.
I swear, horror games and RPGs attract all the bad writers. All of them.
play a kisareth studio game for 20 minutes, hear about a review giving it 5 stars that's in the queue(and written by one of the team members of said "studio"). Watch massive shit storm come in.
You do what you gotta do.
You do what you gotta do.
On the one hand, Suikoden V took a few hours to get to the meat of the game but that was an actually really good game (bar a few issues). On the other hand if your player gets bored before they get into the 'meat' of the game then that's a sign that things might need changing up. On the other, other hand, some players are just not fit for some games (IE - if there's a game that's about building up scene and characters and what-not, where battles and the like are not the important part, then someone complaining about that can be considered ignore-worthy). On the other-other other hand, even then it's worth it to look at the game objectively and go 'can I make this a little less?'
On the last hand, not every game is going to appeal to every player and the creator needs to look at what they wanted to create vs feedback and pick out the points that work towards what they're aiming for.
On the last hand, not every game is going to appeal to every player and the creator needs to look at what they wanted to create vs feedback and pick out the points that work towards what they're aiming for.
author=IsrieriI'm gonna admit I have a few songs on my ipod that take forever to get to the good parts, but the good parts are so good (to me) that I'll suffer through the not-so-great parts to get to them.
A good game is like a catchy beat. If the song has a good hook, you'll be more inclined to see where its going before changing the station.
@Liberty You have a lot of hands.
A review can definitely be made before a certain amount of play time. Most games are pretty different in length anyway so a 2-hour rule isn't going to hold up for most of them. Best just to let a review exist if it has some merit/ legitimate criticism.
A review can definitely be made before a certain amount of play time. Most games are pretty different in length anyway so a 2-hour rule isn't going to hold up for most of them. Best just to let a review exist if it has some merit/ legitimate criticism.
While I don't agree that a game needs to be played to completion or for any specific amount of time in order to review it, I think you need to experience everything the game has to offer. That's may be a very difficult or impossible thing to assess exactly, but I think is more about the mentality. You need to give the game a good, honest shake, even if it hurts.
One issue I have with Dragnfly's review of BW is that he admits to have dropped the game before getting to the gameplay. In cases like that I think it's due diligence to ask the developer for save files that grant you access to the part you couldn't get to yourself. Of course there's still room to say "I dropped the game" "I don't recommend the game" but if you don't evaluate the game as a whole, I wouldn't call that a review. That's an "opinion piece" maybe. And I wouldn't attach a score to that either.
...I don't get it. We have like a dozen or so guides about reviewing, some written by the staff or well regarded members of the site; And they all say the same thing: "Cover everything". However many reviews I see are paragraphs upon paragraphs about this one thing the reviewer didn't like and a "Oh yeah, there's graphics and music too, I guess" if anything. =/
/mini-rant
One issue I have with Dragnfly's review of BW is that he admits to have dropped the game before getting to the gameplay. In cases like that I think it's due diligence to ask the developer for save files that grant you access to the part you couldn't get to yourself. Of course there's still room to say "I dropped the game" "I don't recommend the game" but if you don't evaluate the game as a whole, I wouldn't call that a review. That's an "opinion piece" maybe. And I wouldn't attach a score to that either.
...I don't get it. We have like a dozen or so guides about reviewing, some written by the staff or well regarded members of the site; And they all say the same thing: "Cover everything". However many reviews I see are paragraphs upon paragraphs about this one thing the reviewer didn't like and a "Oh yeah, there's graphics and music too, I guess" if anything. =/
/mini-rant
if we were professional, paid reviewers and this wasn't just a hobbyist site, maybe? but like, time is precious. as long as you are clear about time spent playing in your review then it's fine
liberty: suikoden 5 still isn't a good game. it's a great experience, but it's a shit game.
liberty: suikoden 5 still isn't a good game. it's a great experience, but it's a shit game.
The playtime argument is just a scapegoat. The developer is a sockpuppeting fraud, so I really don't think they have any ground to stand on here.
That doesn't bother me, because if a game's bad, that just means more people will find it bad and leave comments. Of course, if the developer was decent, this would be an excellent way for them to improve their game. If they are a entitled spoiled baby, then all this criticism doesn't help them one bit.
author=eplipswich
Yeah, I guess the not-so-good thing about the Buzz Score is that it also includes negative buzz? :/
That doesn't bother me, because if a game's bad, that just means more people will find it bad and leave comments. Of course, if the developer was decent, this would be an excellent way for them to improve their game. If they are a entitled spoiled baby, then all this criticism doesn't help them one bit.
author=CrazeWe're gonna have to disagree on that point~ XD
liberty: suikoden 5 still isn't a good game. it's a great experience, but it's a shit game.
Actually, the tutorials and articles about reviews don't say that. They say 'cover enough to justify what you're saying' and that is what that review did. It gave examples as to why the game had issues, what kind of issues were found and pointed out that due to those issues it was a chore to get far into the game.
I played the game. The review is right. It took me about 45 minutes to get to the playing part of the game, which is fine if it offers something else in meantime for the player to do, but walking and talking is only interesting if the characters are interesting or the setting is one that you want to explore and see more of. The 'atmosphere' consisted of music that jarringly slammed into you one moment and was gone the next, too-dark maps with horrible lighting effects, and sound effects that were the best thing about the game (bar the fact they were far too loud in places, sometimes drowning out what music did exist). It's a bit of a mess, all told, and the review points that out pretty well. Oh, let's not forget about tutorials cutting in to explain stuff about an hour before you even got to be able to use the thing it was explaining, a TON of bad writing (sentence structure, logic holes, grammar issues, spelling, punctuation - the whole kit and kaboodle) and hard to find teleports/story triggers.
It had some nice touches here and there, but having to wade through all of that just to get to the (kinda bland) meat of the game was worth reporting on. I played an hour of the game then closed it down because I was being sent to sleep... in the middle of the day. It's not a horrible game - it has it's good points - but frankly I think the review was a good one for what it is. I'd have given it 2 stars based on what I played and I'm pretty lenient.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=alterego
While I don't agree that a game needs to be played to completion or for any specific amount of time in order to review it, I think you need to experience everything the game has to offer. That's may be a very difficult or impossible thing to assess exactly, but I think is more about the mentality. You need to give the game a good, honest shake, even if it hurts.
One issue I have with Dragnfly's review of BW is that he admits to have dropped the game before getting to the gameplay. In cases like that I think it's due diligence to ask the developer for save files that grant you access to the part you couldn't get to yourself. Of course there's still room to say "I dropped the game" "I don't recommend the game" but if you don't evaluate the game as a whole, I wouldn't call that a review. That's an "opinion piece" maybe. And I wouldn't attach a score to that either.
TBH if a game takes 40 freakin minutes to get to actual gameplay I think potential players deserve some kind of warning so they can decide whether or not they're up for nearly an hour of fluff.
Especially if that fluff is also terribly written.
You don't need to play to the end of a hypothetical game if it's already spent nearly an hour trying to be a movie, with no reprieve in sight. That's asking way too much of someone whose time could be spent on a game that actually lets you play.
I have no idea what this is all about but...
There's a middle ground here.
If you play a game for 20 minutes or 2 hours or whatever and you don't like it / fails to hold your attention it can be several things:
- The game is crap;
- You're having one of those days;
- It's not your type of game;
Examples:
- Pick a game you absolutely love, there will be people who hate it and couldn't stand even 1 hour of it;
- Some days you'll try out a game and dislike it, then some days or even months later you try it again and you now like it;
But yes, if you don't like a game after spending an amount of time you feel reasonable with it, then you can review it and point out why you didn't like it and why you quit.
Just don't simply assume it's only because the game is crap, things are seldom that simple.
There's a middle ground here.
If you play a game for 20 minutes or 2 hours or whatever and you don't like it / fails to hold your attention it can be several things:
- The game is crap;
- You're having one of those days;
- It's not your type of game;
Examples:
- Pick a game you absolutely love, there will be people who hate it and couldn't stand even 1 hour of it;
- Some days you'll try out a game and dislike it, then some days or even months later you try it again and you now like it;
But yes, if you don't like a game after spending an amount of time you feel reasonable with it, then you can review it and point out why you didn't like it and why you quit.
Just don't simply assume it's only because the game is crap, things are seldom that simple.
author=Liberty
Except when they are, objectively, not a good game due to many reasons.
That happens, one of the reasons I mentioned was "The game is crap".
But the way some people are saying it here just makes it seems like if you don't like it it sucks full stop.
Case in point: I played Chrono Trigger for about 30 minutes before I had to quit, MAN that game sucks!!!
I actually love Chrono Trigger...
