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
-
Replying to @ShonicSSBM
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 -
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LarryInc64 @ShonicSSBM
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LarryInc64
This is for unpaid reviewers btw, stuff like metacritic etc btw
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ShonicSSBM
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LarryInc64
How long tho is long enough? If someone plays 10-15 hrs, would that still be too short?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I guess it depends on how long the whole game is, or how far they got into the game. If they played 20 hours of Cuphead but never got past the tutorial . . . I think at least if you bail before beating the game, that review should be separated from people who beat it.
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.