Hypothetical question, how much of a game do you need to play before you are allowed to give a review on it?
Show this thread
-
I think you need to finish the main campaign to give a proper review, anything less would be a 'first impressions'. As a reviewer, you are supposed to tell us if the game as a whole is worth it. The reviewer does it so you don't have to. If they don't -
then they don't know much more about the game than the person reading the review. You can give your opinion on a game before beating it, but I think a review of someone who played less than half of a game should be valued less than someone who gave the game a proper full look.
-
-
This is for unpaid reviewers btw, stuff like metacritic etc btw
-
Even then, I'd say playing 3 hours of a 20 hour game and giving it one star is a rather worthless review. That may be more a case of 'that game is not for you' than 'this game is bad' It would be interesting to have reviews sorted by playtime though.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It might not be fun to beat the whole game, but as a proper reviewer you are not playing the game for fun. A game that the first half is bad but gets better may still get a low score, but it should score higher than a game that is bad all the way through.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.