I’m working on another review strip, in case anyone was biting their nails in anticipation. It’s just been longer because I’m reviewing a longer game than normal. It’s kind of had me wondering- just how much of a game should a reviewer take in before submitting their opinion of it?
Without giving it all away- though I have elsewhere and in private- I’m doing an RPG. As such, the actual gameplay is pretty much in a certain… formula, with the most variation showing up in gimmick boss fights, and the emphasis is (arguably) on the story. Is it fairer to play the game to completion? Or does it speak for itself if you can’t bring yourself to put in the effort to finish it? I’m not a “pro” reviewer, so I do have a day job and something of a social life taking away from my ability to pound away at a hundred-hour epic adventure in a timely fashion. At about the 30 hour mark of a game, you usually ‘get’ the engine pretty well, and I try to judge games AS games, unless the story is so good or bad that it affects the taste of the rest of the experience. (Sigma Star Saga was a mediocre game with an interesting enough story to make me muscle through, while Mass Effect 3’s ending kind of soured the rest of an otherwise great game- while on that, the extended cut does manage to fix things up about as well as can be expected without a total rewrite.)
Well, off to dinner, then back to work when I return. Stay tuned.
