Ben-DutkaFirst of all, before I even begin, let me clarify by saying that I have no intention of changing my review – which I still stand by – and I doubt Arnold would want to alter his analysis . It's not about us and it's not about specific reviews or critics. It's about a question that came up during the time when Final Fantasy XIII reviews were assaulting the web.
Due to the length of a game like FFXIII and the gamer's insistence that high-profile titles should have in-depth reviews the day of the product's launch, a debate ensued. Should critics complete a game before issuing a review? I've already spoken my piece on this issue; it's a conundrum that unfortunately sees no easy fix. We need the time and most gamers require instant gratification when it comes to the score results for something like FFXIII. But we all have to admit that many – perhaps even the majority – of scores were assigned to the game in question before the reviewer finished the adventure. This being the case, and now that most understand just how drastically the game changes at about the 20-25 hour mark (when one reaches Gran Pulse), I'm wondering if there are critics out there who would like to assign a different score… And I'm not implying that all the scores would go up, although I believe most probably would, due to common complaints.
Personally, while I maintain that Square-Enix wrenched too much of the control and strategy out of my hands in FFXIII, running around and exploring Gran Pulse makes it feel a hell of a lot like FFXII. We still don't run across any true-blue RPG towns but the open-ended exploration is finally here and one can quite literally grind Crystogen points for hours on end. The optional Hunts also add to the variety. In short, in many ways, it feels like a completely different game…so what critic out there is willing to man up and say, "I wanna another shot at the review"? The flaws are still obvious – yeah, the enemies can smack me around while we go through the Paradigm Shift animation; that's not intensely lame and annoying – but hey, Gran Pulse ain't anything like the first ten hours or so. Just thought I'd throw this out there.
Related Game(s): Final Fantasy XIII
As for reviewers writing a review before they have finished the game, I think it's ok, if the reviews are like here on PSXE, I mean for games like Final Fantasy, it takes a lot of time to finish one, and since gamers want it as quickly as possible they don't really have a choice, I for one wouldn't mind waiting an extra two-three days, since I usually buy games regardless (I choose wisely, that's why I have 90% exclusives), I just read reviews as a check-up on how other people think of the game I liked, or maybe even, with a slight chance disliked.
As for FFXIII, still haven't played it yet, I think my friend got bored with it, he isn't at Gran Pulse yet and he keeps saying he's too lazy to play it, so I'm guessing what most of you have said about the first 20 hours is true.
I really don't rate FF games, and I'm bound to get stick for that, but I do think however a reviewer should play a majority of a game before they review it. Consider deadlines, but enforce quality.
I trust the reviews on this site, and if you guys want to take an extra week or two to do a review of a AAA RPG that takes many hours to finish, that's perfectly fine with me.
As far as other sites, it doesn't make much difference to me if they spend 10 hours or 60 hours with a game, I just don't share the reviewer's opinions. I've wasted too much time with games that got a 9.5 only to discover they're basically crap. Most of the games I really love get scores no higher than 8.5. They criticize games for stuff that, after spending 200 hours with a game, make no sense at all to me. So no, I don't care if they revise their reviews – the only use I have for them is to see some gameplay footage.
Some sites might want to retract their scores and give a new one. Tekken 6 needs this a lot too.
Only problem is, I hate the exploration & grinding in FFXII.
I probably won't really mind the first 20 hours of FFXIII then.
I'm not sure it's that big an issue. I plucked thirteen reviews out of Metacritic, from the highest rated down through to the lowest, and all mentioned when the game opens up within 20-30 hours or how long before you get full control over your party. If they didn't finish the game then they did at least seem to get past the point when everybody says the game changes.
I hate to tell you this, but it was common knowledge. Just because a review mentioned it doesn't mean the critic actually got there…
I disagree. It's not just that all thirteen mentioned it, it's that almost all of them talk about it as a personal experience, whether it was a relief to get there, if the change of pace is welcome or not, or even what happens after that point. I think it's more likely they actually played the game at least that far (and likely to conclusion) rather than that they actively lied.
I know Destructoid didn't finish it but reached the final boss. Wired sunk 45 hours into the import copy before playing the US. The Escapist mentioned that the linearity all makes sense once you're past that point but is annoying until then. GamePro talks about exactly what happens in the transition from chapters 10 to 11. VideoGamer breaks it down into the exact points it allowed the reviewer to do certain things. Edge goes on to talk about what happens after it opens up. GamesRadar mentions how impactful it is when you reach Grand Pulse and everything opens up because of how linear and closed-in it is to that point. 1UP talks about how limiting the first ten chapters are before it opens up. IGN (not sure if it was US or UK) talks about their disappointment about how the game handles saves upon completion. GameSpot mentions how the story suffers a bit once the game opens up. The other IGN (again either US or UK) mentions that the game feels a bit lifeless in the open areas. Eurogamer mentions how that point feels almost like a mistep and welcomed when it was over and "you're back on the hamster-wheel of story".
CVG is the only where there was maybe some wiggle room, talking it opening up in a more impersonal fashion that doesn't go into any detail to be sure they passed it. Maybe I happened to pick those few who did complete the game (I did prioritise large publications over ones I'd not heard of) and if I'd gone through all 72 it would have been different, but along with PSXE those thirteen sites probably cover the most influential reviews in terms of audience size.
I will tell you from personal experience that some of those never reached Gran Pulse. Much of review writing can be very creative if it needs to be…it can easily build off what other people have written.
I hate to say this because it paints critics in a bad light but it does happen. I can write a review that 100% convinces you I played and completed a game, but in fact, I never touched it. I've never DONE that and I never WILL; I'm just saying I could. So could others…
What personal experience, if you don't mind me asking? You're not just saying that journalists don't finish games before they review (which I'm not convinced about in general but isn't a problem if they're honest about it) but that they actively lie about it (and praising or criticising parts you've not experienced would absolutely be a lie).
In this case we're talking large sites/magazines that employ a bunch of people specifically for reviews as well as taking on freelancers, with FFXIII review code being sent out up to two weeks in advance. I don't think it's unrealistic to think some reviewers managed to find thirty hours to put in before the embargo lifted.
A good writer is a fantastic faker 🙂
I tend to agree with The_Benny. I mean if your JOB is to review games, it take two MAYBE three days to get 20 hours into a game. Unless reviewers only work 4 hour days it would only make sense. And don't tell me they had other things to do at work because no, they didn't
I'm sorry Alienange, are you trying to tell me what I work on every day? Are you people somehow forgetting that a critic typically has a lot more than ONE game to review at any given time? And let's not forget that it's hardly their only job? They probably have about a dozen other articles or other things for the site/mag that needs to be done. I don't think enough of you are actually getting this.
Benny: What I'm telling you is that I know of reviewers YOU probably know who have issued reviews of games without completing them, and they commented on sections they never saw. I'm not telling you it's common; I'm telling you it was far more likely to happen with FFXIII, which is long and also released during a time when there would be a lot of work for critics. That's all I'm saying.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 4/2/2010 9:08:40 PM
Well I'll have to take your word on that because I don't think it would be right to expect you to name names and I can hardly claim to be more familiar with gaming journalism than you.
Would you agree though that it's less likely at the big sites? They're not like PSXE where you have one person handling the majority of the news, features, reviews, previews and managing the community, a ridiculous load that you handle well. There are community moderators, news editors, freelancers pitching features, specialist reviewers etc. in addition to the general staff.
As an example with easy to access information (all content there can be filtered by type and by person), Eurogamer (15 full staff and 12 regular contributors, as well as some other regular freelancers) has 31 reviews up for the past month from 13 reviewers, full time and freelance. The person who reviewed FFXIII for them (a fulltime staff member) reviewed nothing else for a month before the review went live and contributed no previews, features, editorials etc. during that time, just a couple of news items a day. Even allowing for the likelihood that his job involves more than just what makes it onto the site it seems likely there was more than enough time to play the game for as long as the review suggests.
Of course, if a source has the resources, I don't expect this to be the case.
But the number of smaller sites like ours vastly outnumber the larger sites and when Metacritic and GameRankings count review scores, the majority are from those with less resources. Therefore, I consider the question legitimate. I wasn't asking if GameSpot or Eurogamer wanted to change their score, no.
I think we're in agreement now then. I imagine most (if not all) the big sites I mentioned a couple of posts up did reach that point and probably finished the game too, which is what I thought we were disagreeing on. It could definitely be a different case for the sites with smaller teams, but I'd like to think they either wouldn't talk about that point without playing it (like in your review) or at least keep from making it seem like a personal experience ("By all accounts the game opens up towards the end of the game but it's a long linear road before that"). Not completing a game isn't much of an issue but being dishonest about it is.
I do think that a majority of gamers who pay attention to reviews would have started from the big sites, and as those thirteen reviews went all the way from the best scores to the worst I don't know how much of a difference it would make to the Metacritic if other sites changed their reviews after finishing the game. Some might bump it up a point, some lower it, and others feel comfortable with the score they gave it as it still applies to the majority of the game. I'd like to think that if somebody really felt that chapter eleven does significantly improve/change the game then they would at least put up something discussing it, even if it's not a full re-review. Perhaps I'm just optimistic.
it could have a 6 or a 9 as a score, my opinion of the game still stands….a collosal waste of cash wich i wont buy until i see cheap or preowned somewhere, too much eye candy , too lil actual game on it, and i flat out refuuuuuse to watch 15 hours of cgi, with 50 mins of fights spread out on it..
but its so pretty.
Haha.
It's surprising to see so many jrpg lovers hate on FFXIII as if somehow no other jrpg has been linear for it's first 20 hours.
The game being linear isn't an issue, at least for me. Too much of the gameplay was taken away from the player. X was just a linear but it was more fun because we had control. Not so in XIII. Like World said, the battle system is broken. The AI does everything and ending the game when the party leader falls is just stupid. The gameplay is unbalenced.
Last edited by Jawknee on 4/2/2010 10:00:01 AM
@ Jawknee
I agree.
You know the LEAST they could've done is give you the option to switch party leaders during battle and/or switch leader once previous leader gets KO'd.
If all members get ko'd fine but the hell with this leader dies and game is over crap. So far I think everyone hates this aspect of the game.
Yup, allowing us to switch leader mid battle and ending the game only if the entire party is dead would have made all the difference for me.
I agree with you. The game over because of the leader dying is nonsense and makes the game harder than it should be. I was talking about the people complaining about the linearity though. Of which there are a lot.
maybe its ok to not finish a game prior to reviewing it. After all, unlike with movies for instance, a lot a gamers will purchase a game, get several hours in and then give up, for a variety of reasons. So the reviewer not finishing a game would reflect reality, but they should explicitly say that they haven't finished the game and indicate whether they will be bothered to do so.
Anyway, I finished FFXIII. I found it compelling, despite all the reservations everyone has and which I wouldn't dispute. There is a small upside to the linear nature of the first half of the game – I appreciated not having to do do much grinding. On the other hand, I would have liked the opportunity to chill and do other stuff than corridor crawl for 20 hours
I was trying to read what you wrote there but my mind kept drifting towards the DQ games and the lack of them on PS3.
I'm not up to 20 hours yet, but I'm loving it!
Will this get a GOTY release? If so will it cut the crap and just let me play the good bit at the end?
I will. I picked it up yesterday. Its not half as bad as i thought i would be. i'm just at the part where they save sara(h). But so far so good.
I still want to eventually play FF XIII but the whole it's not a FF experience delays my interest more and more. My birthday is in June, and I'm opting for Red Dead Redemtion and Infamous most likely.
I tell you what, i'd rather play through a 20 – hour tutorial in the form of a JRPG then put up with the crap that comes out of western studio's anyday of the week. Garbage like Borderlands and Mass Effect can go take a running jump, they don't have the right to call themselves games let alone RPG's.
I would say that WRPG's are dead but the truth is WRPG's were never really alive. No western RPG has ever or will ever achieve the kinds of sales success that real RPG's such as Pokemon and Final Fantasy achieve with every installment.
Ok, but by Squenix's own admission, their goal with FFXIII was to take the "J" OUT of "JRPG." From your narrow-minded and unbalanced post, it seems like you should be pretty dissatisfied with XIII and Squenix.
-Arvis
Bad mouthing western rpgs that way is a new low even for the psxe crowd.
I love them buddy so take your J and shove it.
Western RPGs are and always have been closer to REAL RPGs than any JRPG. To argue otherwise simply displays ignorance.
RPGs existed before Dragon Warrior and Final Fantasy; defining the term RPG by those games is like defining the term FPS by Halo.
Pokemon? Seriously?
MacFail.
Oh, and WOW begs to differ with your claims about sales numbers.
Last edited by Fane1024 on 4/4/2010 2:21:57 AM
Well, it's like I always said, even the worst that Final Fantasy has to offer is still better than most. I just hope with Versus and XV they have a decent enough grasp on the technology to make us a real RPG that doesn't cut corners.
Cut corners — couldn't say it any better than that. Simply stroking the x button semi-quickly for 10 hours barely qualifies as video game, let alone a Final Fantasy title worthy of the name. I'll push on and play at least a bit more of this game, but so far I'm just baffled that THIS disaster is What S-E has sunk years and countless dollars into.
FF13 is a good game in general but lacking when compared with earlier FF titles. I've said this and will continue to say it time and time again, the combat approach is a big let down. Nothing beats the old-school turn-based system. Nothing.
Xbots gotta be thinking "Why do sony people love these games so much?"
This game is by far my favorite PS3 game. I have no idea what people were complaining about. Seriously, do they want the same game over and over again? The whole point of the FF series is innovation and changing things up. People didn't say, "MGS4 is too linear and therefore sucks!" Whatever. If it had another name on the cover, it would have gotten 10's by some reviewers. I give it a 10 and did so from the beginning, SO THERE!
Whoa! We got told, I guess…
-Arvis
yes, we want the same game (elements) over and over again because you can't fix perfection.
no i just want a game, not a movie that i press x every now and then and call it a video game…blue rays cost 25 bucks ya know …ff 60 , "the failure within begins" should be what the commercials say, cuz there seems to be a whole lot of fail in square enix as of late….just cause impressed me though , credit for that squeenix
mgs4 is not linear btw, the replay value alone is better than FF's , as i doubt anyone would slog thru the 20 hour movie marathon twice. there is CHOICE in mgs4 as to how i want to complete objectives, there IS NONE in FF, its just a linear progression till the end of the game and even then its just repeating what you have done 1000 times over by then when you get to gran pulse
@ formerroadie
I think its just difficult to generalize because everone is different and everyone plays their RPG's/JRPG's a little different and is satisfied or dissatisfied with diffferent things.
Did that make sense? 🙂
btw are you new to the Final Fantasy franchise?
FFXIII is just too linear and if it isn't for the fun battle system I think I would have given up on it by now.
surely SquareEnix missed a trick not including a game+ option, to let you run through the game lumping the bosses?
I thought the story & characters were a new low for FF, but the ending was pretty effective
I do believe some games need more attention paid to them more than others. Especially if a game is as long as 90 hours of game play. Some games do progress effectively and get better level by level. Other games start off awesome and leave you feeling insulted and bored when the end finally comes.
I started noticing a trend with critics, they keep their reviews vague and general. It makes me wonder if they even pressed start on the damn game they just wrote a review on! Other critics are overly bias and harm the games potential of NOT being overlooked. Then you find a few genuine reviews that one can tell were written from experience.
Overall, as readers the best way to get a "complete" review is to read countless reviews and compare. That's where Metacritic comes into play, unfortunately.
Taking 20-25 hours to get to an AREA that makes a game good doesn't quite necessarily make the game good. Just makes that area good, lol.
I tried. I really tried. I even wrote about my experience:
http://hellforge.gameriot.com/blogs/Random-Ravings/The-FFXIII-Experience-Hiatus
That was the farewell blog, where I gave up towards the end of Chapter 9 (the previous blogs are all linked in there). So even I was unable to finish the game and write a complete review.
Considering this WAS my FFXIII review score, I certainly can't retract it. You can't get much more honest then direct experience. The worst FF ever.