Video Game Reviews Graded Incomplete?

Whenever a brand new title hits the shelves, thousands of gamers around the world fire up their computers or crack open their gaming magazines to see what their favorite reviewers had to say. These reviewers are professional game writers, but since we consumers invest our time and money based on their recommendations, we should probably ask a few questions. First and foremost: how much time does a reviewer actually spend with a title? And how often do they even complete them?

I suppose that’s something of an unfair question given the fact that most games these days aren’t even meant to be completed. Point in case: try to find a reviewer–or anyone–that has ever finished World of Warcraft. If you try to claim you have, I would call you a liar because a “Game Over” screen doesn’t exist. Sure, you might argue that reaching level 70 and attaining tier three epic gear is close, but even then, there is always another Molten Core run or Arathi Basin fight waiting for you. This type of never ending game isn’t limited to MMOs either; just think about the franchise mode in your favorite sports game or deathmatch only games like Shadowrun, Warhawk or Counterstrike.

Other titles do have a celebratory “Game Over” screen, but reaching it doesn’t necessarily grant the player the complete game experience. If you cycle through Halo 3 service records on Xbox Live, you’ll find a lot of high ranking officers that have never–not even once–started the campaign mode. These people have spent countless hours on this game, but have never taken a step towards “completing” it. If this is the audience that game reviewers are targeting, why should a reviewer put any emphasis on the storyline if it isn’t the point of the title?

In the case of Halo 3 it makes perfect sense that reviewers play through to its conclusion (since it can be completed on Normal in a long afternoon), but a review of Halo 3 could easily have focused exclusively on the multiplayer modes and still offered worthwhile advice. The fact that every reviewer and his mother complained about the story mode and still gave the game great scores leads me to believe that the reviewers at least took the multiplayer aspect into account, weighing it into their overall opinion of the game.

There was a time when games were 90% storyline and they had only a little bit of side content; think any retro Zelda, Mario or Final Fantasy title. While some games still follow this formula, including last year’s game of the year Bioshock, it is far more common to see long sprawling games with near-infinite possible outcomes, often achieved by a lack of that “Game Over” screen.

Let’s say I, as a game writer, were tasked with reviewing a title like Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Since it can be completed in about 20-30 hours (if you hustle) it would be completely possible for me to pound out the story in a couple of days and have the review on my editor’s desk by the end of the week. The problem is that I would have only seen a small fraction of the world. The true feeling of adventure and exploration the game is capable of is impossible this way. But if I were to take my time and enjoy the bounty of the title, I would no doubt have a pretty grumpy editor on my hands.

This issue is only exacerbated by the time crunch that comes with playing games while writing on a deadline. Reviews have to be based on a rushed play experience. So how exactly should reviewers acclimate to the non-linear trends of modern games? Perhaps reviewers should focus more on the game’s intended experience rather than just the single-player story.

So as conscientious consumers we often find ourselves asking if reviewers have completed a title, but perhaps we should ask ourselves if they even should. Next time you read through a review, ask what the designers were intending, then ask yourself the question: “Did this reviewer get the point?”