Dear TRS Dudes: Please please stop reviewing games before you finish them!

[foliot]

Hey dudes, you may remember me from WoW... Alex and I played together on our rogues once or twice... I don't play on that server much anymore... But I digress.

I really think you need to stop reviewing games before you finish them. It is sloppy, inaccurate, and in all honesty, you do not know what you are talking about. Dan, would you review a movie without watching the whole thing?

I'll use Assassins' Creed as an example. That game is a truly cinematic experience. It starts off slowly, like you said, but take my word for it guys, it builds. It builds up to the most mind blowing, insane, intriguing ending I have ever seen over my many many years of being a game connoisseur. Because you did not finish the game before passing judgment on it (final of not), you made a huge mistake, and in the process somewhat discredited yourselfs.

I don't think this is the first time you have reviewed a game before actually finishing it, but the previous times were not as bad as this. I know that games take time to finish, and I know you are on a schedule, but it just really.. sucks, to hear a game that does not deserve such a crappy review bashed because the reviewers haven't finished the game. And it's not just AC that doesn't deserve to be "half reviewed", it's every game.

Still Loyal Watcher,

BB.

[bad-andy]

I could not agree with you more. No matter what game it is, you cannot give an honest review of it until you have finished it.

Like you said, you wouldn't review a movie if you hadn't seen the whole thing.

I still love the show, but you guys should hold off reviewing games in the future until at least one of you have finished it.

[serenity]

Doesn't really bother me. I mean, how many games do you actually finish? I've only finished my favourites. Anything else usually gets played for a while then falls to the wayside until I forget about it.

[neverendingwhitelights]

Most people don't have the time to blow through an entire game in a small amount of time. As long as they preface it by saying how much they played, it's all gravy. Then once they get it done they can add on to their previous thoughts at a later time. That'd work for me.

[phunlee]

I would review a TV show before I got to see a whole season. Y'know?

I think they did good by saying "The game STARTS out SHITT-Y"
Instead of "This Game is SHITTY from beginning to end"

Also, like a TV show: Most folks lose interest quick if they're not captivated in the first few episodes or missions or whatever this game has.

I wish I had the patience and time for games, b/c you and the guys on the show make me feel like I'm missing incredible game/geek/cinematic experiences.
and it also means a third of TRS is totally wasted on me. Oh, I do have a DS, I love my DS. Can you give me some good game ideas for it???
Mario Kart is losing it's luster.

-W

[trsjeff]

Hey dudes, you may remember me from WoW... Alex and I played together on our rogues once or twice... I don't play on that server much anymore... But I digress.

I really think you need to stop reviewing games before you finish them. It is sloppy, inaccurate, and in all honesty, you do not know what you are talking about. Dan, would you review a movie without watching the whole thing?

I'll use Assassins' Creed as an example. That game is a truly cinematic experience. It starts off slowly, like you said, but take my word for it guys, it builds. It builds up to the most mind blowing, insane, intriguing ending I have ever seen over my many many years of being a game connoisseur. Because you did not finish the game before passing judgment on it (final of not), you made a huge mistake, and in the process somewhat discredited yourselfs.

I don't think this is the first time you have reviewed a game before actually finishing it, but the previous times were not as bad as this. I know that games take time to finish, and I know you are on a schedule, but it just really.. sucks, to hear a game that does not deserve such a crappy review bashed because the reviewers haven't finished the game. And it's not just AC that doesn't deserve to be "half reviewed", it's every game.

Still Loyal Watcher,

BB.


Hi BB, thanks for the feedback. I really do appreciate it, and you have a very valid point.

Two things: First, it is my personal goal (and I know it is Dan's as well) to finish every game before discussing it on the show. Sometimes we have to balance our ability to get through the entire game against the timeliness of a review (for instance, I'm sure a bunch of people are going to be unhappy that Mass Effect and Uncharted aren't going to be in the next episode, but in the one following THAT - blame Thanksgiving. But we will have finished them, so take solace in that).

Second, we're honestly trying to do something a little more subtle with our show than just "reviews". I've always wanted to make a show more like Charlie Rose than Ebert and Roper. There are a million video game and movie review websites out in the world. We're trying to have a discussion about the things on our show, rather than just review them. And this is something we constantly have to focus on, because there are a lot of people trying to push us more and more toward the conventional "review" show. One of the most common requests we have, both from viewers and from Revision3 is to come up with a "rating system" to end our reviews. But we're not "reviewing", we're just 3 dudes hanging out talking. Nobody asks Joy Behar to quantify her enjoyment of the new fall fashions on the View - she just gets to talk about it with her co-hosts. But I, too, digress. Our show is about our particular take on things, not about objective, clinical reviews. For instance, Alex is the type of guy who will simply not play a game if it doesn't grab him. He's not going to play Assassin's Creed for 15 hours if hour 1 isn't compelling. Does that make his impression of hour 1 invalid? I don't think it does. His is the perspective of many of our viewers - they want to be entertained immediately and don't want to have to slog through stuff they don't enjoy to get to an ending that may or may not redeem the experience. I feel that Alex's perspective is a valuable one.

In short, we never claim to be the end-all, be-all point of view on games. Gamespot and IGN claim that. They want to come at things with a clinical objectivity and provide the definitive review. We don't. We're just 3 dudes with nothing better to do, who love what we love and don't like what we don't like. This is just our take.

That said, I really do aim to complete as many games as I can before discussing them on the show. But this fall has been nuts! I mean - nuts! Right?

-Jeff

[bad-andy]

I can understand that totally, November especially has been a chaotic month for games, but man, you have got to finish Assassin's Creed. It does get much better as you go on.

If you get some free time to play it, you really should.

[serenity]

Hi BB, thanks for the feedback. I really do appreciate it, and you have a very valid point.

Two things: First, it is my personal goal (and I know it is Dan's as well) to finish every game before discussing it on the show. Sometimes we have to balance our ability to get through the entire game against the timeliness of a review (for instance, I'm sure a bunch of people are going to be unhappy that Mass Effect and Uncharted aren't going to be in the next episode, but in the one following THAT - blame Thanksgiving. But we will have finished them, so take solace in that).

Second, we're honestly trying to do something a little more subtle with our show than just "reviews". I've always wanted to make a show more like Charlie Rose than Ebert and Roper. There are a million video game and movie review websites out in the world. We're trying to have a discussion about the things on our show, rather than just review them. And this is something we constantly have to focus on, because there are a lot of people trying to push us more and more toward the conventional "review" show. One of the most common requests we have, both from viewers and from Revision3 is to come up with a "rating system" to end our reviews. But we're not "reviewing", we're just 3 dudes hanging out talking. Nobody asks Joy Behar to quantify her enjoyment of the new fall fashions on the View - she just gets to talk about it with her co-hosts. But I, too, digress. Our show is about our particular take on things, not about objective, clinical reviews. For instance, Alex is the type of guy who will simply not play a game if it doesn't grab him. He's not going to play Assassin's Creed for 15 hours if hour 1 isn't compelling. Does that make his impression of hour 1 invalid? I don't think it does. His is the perspective of many of our viewers - they want to be entertained immediately and don't want to have to slog through stuff they don't enjoy to get to an ending that may or may not redeem the experience. I feel that Alex's perspective is a valuable one.

In short, we never claim to be the end-all, be-all point of view on games. Gamespot and IGN claim that. They want to come at things with a clinical objectivity and provide the definitive review. We don't. We're just 3 dudes with nothing better to do, who love what we love and don't like what we don't like. This is just our take.

That said, I really do aim to complete as many games as I can before discussing them on the show. But this fall has been nuts! I mean - nuts! Right?

-Jeff


Ew, a rating system would be awful. I hate that idea! :mad: I'm glad you all are resisting that.
Much better to keep it informal and fun. Let's face it - "review" is the closest word to what you actually do on the show but it's so much more than that! It's dynamic, funny, flexible and it just flows very well.

[diane]

I agree with Serenity, I like the informality, a rating system would be bad.

As for finishing the game, well, I am more of an Alex player, I don't normally finish games. I frankly have a ton on my plate and most of the games I would like to play, I just can't play with my son saying "No, don't go there, wait! You missed that!" and so on. I need to know if the game is going to hook me from the beginning or not.

For me, gaming is a mindless release. Some people watch soaps, I play. I don't have the time, energy or effort to put in on a game that is boring at the beginning. I wish I did, and maybe one day I will, but until life slows down, knowing the game has a bad beginning saves me $60 I can spend on another game that will ultimately prevent me from going anymore gray before my time.

Hence, my Assassin's Creed is going back and the money set aside for next week's review.

[phunlee]

"Nobody asks Joy Behar to quantify her enjoyment of the new fall fashions on the View - she just gets to talk about it with her co-hosts."

Quote from Jeff

I just pictured you guys in a View-style (SNL-Style) intro. Fuzzy lenses, bright pastel colors....who would be Star Jones????

[blazes816]

The majority of game play is done before the game is over. Actually, by definition, all the game play is done before. So if I want to know what it's going to be like for me to play, then I'm fine with them reviewing before they finish it.

[mormonrage]

I've never considered the discussions of games on TRS to be "reviews." Personally, I'm done with reviews--discussions about the mechanics, graphics, and functions of the game seem kind of archaic to me at this point. And assigning a score based on all that? Bleh. Everyone knows plenty about the specifics of a game before they even play it thanks to all the pre-release access to screens, vids, and previews.

I think what Jeff, Dan, and Alex provide is much more significant than a review. What's important to me now--and what very few traditional reviews provide--is a sense of how it feels to play the game. The TRS guys do that as well as anyone--better than most, in fact. I love the video games section because they don't get caught up in the typical trappings of game reviews. I don't think it's necessary to finish a game to communicate the sensation of playing it. In the case of Assassin's Creed, is there really something so stirring in the final act of the game that could compensate for hours of monotony leading up to it? Seems doubtful. But, I'll bet if there is, the guys will follow up and say so.

[siraim]

Honestly, I'd prefer to see a few games.. or movies.. or tv shows "reviewed" where the boys don't make it through. I love hearing negative opinions about things and differing opinions at that. I read through the reviews in magazines looking for the ones that are low because I know the reviewer had to passionately dislike a something to score it that low.

I wish there were MORE semi-reviewed movies on TRS.. but it seems every movie that is reviewed is the cinematic equivalent to THE SHIELD... the greatest show ever.. ..

As for semi-finished games? I'm some what through Mass Effect right now and have to say, there are parts I love.. parts I can see myself loving as I get more skills.. and parts I loathe. That's enough of an experience for me to recommend to my friends that they buy this game.. with a few caveats.

[trsjeff]

I love hearing negative opinions about things and differing opinions at that. I read through the reviews in magazines looking for the ones that are low because I know the reviewer had to passionately dislike a something to score it that low.

I wish there were MORE semi-reviewed movies on TRS.. but it seems every movie that is reviewed is the cinematic equivalent to THE SHIELD... the greatest show ever.. ..


You will definitely want to watch next week's show ;)

-Jeff

[siraim]

You will definitely want to watch next week's show ;)

-Jeff

and to think, I was about to skip an episode! ;)

[samuelspence]

Thanks for stopping by for the conversation, Jeff.

In response to the general consensus on this thread:
I agree that it is great to have an opinionated view of a product instead of waffling around and not really saying anything, BUT it gets to a point where there is a difference between being opinionated and just jumping to conclusions. Jeff/Dan, I think it was clear that you guys did have a lot to say about the game as a result of a good amount of time spent with it, and while I understand Alex's position (in the same boat here), I don't think its fair to categorically strike down a game like Assassins Creed, which looked and sounded like it was going to be great, and when questioned about it, to say that its just the way 'you are.' There would have been a better way to approach it, imo.

[samuelspence]

and to think, I was about to skip an episode! ;)

That's a lie.

[maxiscool1994]

Hi BB, thanks for the feedback. I really do appreciate it, and you have a very valid point.

Two things: First, it is my personal goal (and I know it is Dan's as well) to finish every game before discussing it on the show. Sometimes we have to balance our ability to get through the entire game against the timeliness of a review (for instance, I'm sure a bunch of people are going to be unhappy that Mass Effect and Uncharted aren't going to be in the next episode, but in the one following THAT - blame Thanksgiving. But we will have finished them, so take solace in that).

Second, we're honestly trying to do something a little more subtle with our show than just "reviews". I've always wanted to make a show more like Charlie Rose than Ebert and Roper. There are a million video game and movie review websites out in the world. We're trying to have a discussion about the things on our show, rather than just review them. And this is something we constantly have to focus on, because there are a lot of people trying to push us more and more toward the conventional "review" show. One of the most common requests we have, both from viewers and from Revision3 is to come up with a "rating system" to end our reviews. But we're not "reviewing", we're just 3 dudes hanging out talking. Nobody asks Joy Behar to quantify her enjoyment of the new fall fashions on the View - she just gets to talk about it with her co-hosts. But I, too, digress. Our show is about our particular take on things, not about objective, clinical reviews. For instance, Alex is the type of guy who will simply not play a game if it doesn't grab him. He's not going to play Assassin's Creed for 15 hours if hour 1 isn't compelling. Does that make his impression of hour 1 invalid? I don't think it does. His is the perspective of many of our viewers - they want to be entertained immediately and don't want to have to slog through stuff they don't enjoy to get to an ending that may or may not redeem the experience. I feel that Alex's perspective is a valuable one.

In short, we never claim to be the end-all, be-all point of view on games. Gamespot and IGN claim that. They want to come at things with a clinical objectivity and provide the definitive review. We don't. We're just 3 dudes with nothing better to do, who love what we love and don't like what we don't like. This is just our take.

That said, I really do aim to complete as many games as I can before discussing them on the show. But this fall has been nuts! I mean - nuts! Right?

-Jeff

I think that you guys really have accomplished that goal. You guys distinguish yourselves as reviewers because you look at a game from the layman's perspective: you analyze what really matters-- the feel.

[wideawakewesley]

no ratings ever please!

[yawnstretch]

Screw ratings!

The way you guys do it is AWESOME. Chilln, chatting - keepin it loose.

Love it - also the truth is that as you get older you dont usually have 40 freakin hours to chuck at games :(

This is what bothers me about most reviews of games - it's reviewers not people like me who are reviewing them. They play games differently to regular players so their opinion tends to be further from mine.

[johnnysix]

The guys not having finished the game doesn't bother me in the slightest. You shouldn't need to have finished a game to make comment on how your experience was / is. It's all well and good to have a game you can look back on and say it was a masterpiece in the end, but if players struggle get past the tutorial, a lot of people will simply turn off.

Also, I agree with no ratings. I think the show is above that kind of simplification. On the topic of movies, I don't mind a bit if the guys love the hell out of the next ten movies they watch, it means there's obviously some quality stuff about to watch, hence more fun for me. Whilst I find negative reviews interesting, I would rather talk about a movie I loved than one I hated.

[ookla]

you could all be ex-View members.

Dan-
It's all good. We forum posters are just more people in a bigger conversation knocking around banter. We don't expect to agree all the time either.
Hell, *friends *can't help getting worked up sometimes. It just shows we're passionate.

That said, don't mess up again. ;)

Ookla

[siraim]

That's a lie.

Probably. :)

[kevincollateral]

Please no rating system!!!

For me the reason I love this show like others have said is because it's not a normal review. I am a lot like Alex, if it doesn't spark my interest I'm out. I want to know if the game is worth my time. So keep up the great work!

[cyber34]

I too think there shouldn't be any sort of numerical rating system.

Gabe of PA does bring up some good points on the subject of having to review games in a time frame.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2007/11/14

[foliot]

Hi BB, thanks for the feedback. I really do appreciate it, and you have a very valid point.

Two things: First, it is my personal goal (and I know it is Dan's as well) to finish every game before discussing it on the show. Sometimes we have to balance our ability to get through the entire game against the timeliness of a review (for instance, I'm sure a bunch of people are going to be unhappy that Mass Effect and Uncharted aren't going to be in the next episode, but in the one following THAT - blame Thanksgiving. But we will have finished them, so take solace in that).

Second, we're honestly trying to do something a little more subtle with our show than just "reviews". I've always wanted to make a show more like Charlie Rose than Ebert and Roper. There are a million video game and movie review websites out in the world. We're trying to have a discussion about the things on our show, rather than just review them. And this is something we constantly have to focus on, because there are a lot of people trying to push us more and more toward the conventional "review" show. One of the most common requests we have, both from viewers and from Revision3 is to come up with a "rating system" to end our reviews. But we're not "reviewing", we're just 3 dudes hanging out talking. Nobody asks Joy Behar to quantify her enjoyment of the new fall fashions on the View - she just gets to talk about it with her co-hosts. But I, too, digress. Our show is about our particular take on things, not about objective, clinical reviews. For instance, Alex is the type of guy who will simply not play a game if it doesn't grab him. He's not going to play Assassin's Creed for 15 hours if hour 1 isn't compelling. Does that make his impression of hour 1 invalid? I don't think it does. His is the perspective of many of our viewers - they want to be entertained immediately and don't want to have to slog through stuff they don't enjoy to get to an ending that may or may not redeem the experience. I feel that Alex's perspective is a valuable one.

In short, we never claim to be the end-all, be-all point of view on games. Gamespot and IGN claim that. They want to come at things with a clinical objectivity and provide the definitive review. We don't. We're just 3 dudes with nothing better to do, who love what we love and don't like what we don't like. This is just our take.

That said, I really do aim to complete as many games as I can before discussing them on the show. But this fall has been nuts! I mean - nuts! Right?

-Jeff

Hey Jeff, thanks for the response!

I totally agree, ratings would suck. And I also very much enjoy the shows style of "3 rad dudes, talking about stuff they like and giving opinions on those things."

In my original post, I used the word "review" meaning what you guys do (discuss)... Not IGN style... But TRS style.

[thecakeisalie]

No rating system please :)

I enjoy the video game section as it is now. The more formal and structured you make it, the less fun it will be to watch :) If I want a step by step breakdown of everything about a game, I'll go look up some reviews on the web.

[damnedeyez]

Definitely no ratings system.

I think the thing I like most about the show is that it feels like 4 guys getting together on the weekend in the living room, sitting and talking about things they saw/played during the week...one just happens to be filming.

Ok, so it's not a couch in a living room but chairs/stools in a garage with a green screen and the camera is on a tripod...you get the point.

[gummo]

I am not sure that Alex... finishes games.

[senoj1]

I agree, I never consider you guys giving reviews more of talking about experiences. Also picking out what is good and bad of games a presenting them. Also i wanted to know how long is Assassins Creed about how many hours?

[autodas]

They said Assassin's Creed had a shitty beginning for a few hours and then it got moderately good until the repetition set in. I say that's a completely valid and good review. If a game takes that look just to be okay, I'm not going to finish it cause I have a life. It sounds like they really struggled through that game in order to get a better review. They also have a timeframe to review said game before no one cares about it, you probably finished the game by playing nonstop and after their review came out. I trust these guys to review stuff more than anyone, especially X-Play. They don't fall in line for the hype like you do. Don't do a rating system.