Alex, finish the games.

[pplufthesun]

I have just been watching the most recent episode of TRS, and I picked up on the fact that many times, Alex doesn't finish the games that he is given. MGS4, not finished. Braid, a game that must be finished to get the full enjoyment out of it..neglected to be finished, Civilization Revolution, not finished.

Finish the game. Do not review the game unless you finish it. You could not give a fair review of games such as MGS4 or Braid especially unless it is completed. Please, you get to see movies and play games for a career, the least you could do is finish the games.

[eddielee]

He's busy with his other game, for his other podcast: WoW.

[ohhoe]

He's busy with his other game, for his other podcast: WoW.

Alex was busy with WoW long before Project Lore. haha.

[eddielee]

Man I remember him talking about WoW in early early eps of diggnation.... still playing that stuff

[siraim]

Car and Driver don't have to drive a car until it is towed away in order to understand the nature of the car.. why do people have to play through an entire game to give their opinion on the game?

[yssman]

I'm going to be honest here...

...I don't think its completely necessary for Alex to finish every game he plays to make a "full review." You guys can take what you like out of them, but lets be honest, when you're playing a game that you don't particularly like (be it for a review or not), are you really going to feel like finishing it?

I know I wouldn't. If I started playing a game and really hated it, I'd likely push myself to go a little further, but if I really hate it, I hate it. That's that. I commend Alex for having the guts to do what I do, and truth be told, if it was really that much of a problem, Dan and Jeff would hit him over the head with a book. Or a small chair. Or both.

Alex, keep doing what you're doing, its fine by me.

[eddielee]

Car and Driver don't have to drive a car until it is towed away in order to understand the nature of the car.. why do people have to play through an entire game to give their opinion on the game?

More like just putting in the keys and turning on the engine, without actually driving it.

Games like Beyond Good & Evil, Legend of Zelda, and even World of Warcraft are really terrible at first. As you near the end, they become epic.

[rickfedor]

It's not so much the not finishing it that bugs me, it's that he seems so closed off to anything outside his immediate comfort zone of WoW or Gears... but hey whatever, people like what they like, and it's not like Alex is the only one reviewing, and by now I'm pretty certain we've all figured out which of the guys match our own opinions best across the various categories.

[siraim]

More like just putting in the keys and turning on the engine, without actually driving it.

Games like Beyond Good & Evil, Legend of Zelda, and even World of Warcraft are really terrible at first. As you near the end, they become epic.

Given that Civ-Rev is the game that sent this particular thread into action, I'd argue that I enjoy the beginning of Civ far more than the end game. Civ IV bogs down at the end game, in my experiences.

To continue the car analogy, if you force someone to drive a car that has a manual transmission and that person either hates manual transmission or just fell in love with the convenience of the automatic, no amount of driving with the manual will change their opinion. The fact that others see the sublime joy that is cruising around the California coastline is lost on them forever.

Why does finishing a game bother people so much? Especially when they're giving their impressions of the game. They're not a review site and have never puported to be.

[johnnysix]

I think it's unreasonable to expect any of the guys to finish a game before they talk about it. I mean, seriously, if you want that style of review take a look over at 1up. Personally, I appreciate that the opinion is coming from someone who is busy and I can take that on board as somebody else who doesn't necessarily have the time to spend hours and hours to finish a game. As the demographic for gaming has changed over the years, games are no longer aimed squarely at kids with loads of spare time. The majority of people who buy games now are in there twenties and thirties and are spending most of their time studying or working.
The good thing about TRS is that when it comes to games, you have 3 different gamers up there talking. Jeff is your typical "hardcore gamer" (whatever that is?), Dan is somewhere in between and Alex represents a more multiplayer oriented player.

Personally, I don't care if Alex finishes game, I'd just like to see him broaden his horizons. It's almost to the point where a week doesn't go by that WOW isn't mentioned or game isn't compared to WOW. I liken WOW to junk food. It's easy, it's consistent and provides instant gratification. You start eating too much of it though and you realize it's bland and not good for you in the long term. Your taste buds start to shrivel up and die, and before you know it you won't eat anything else. You start eliminating whole entire food groups from your diet like RTS and Fighting Games.... errr... oops, I mean Fish and Pasta.... hmm... I think I've stretched this metaphor far enough... you get what I mean, right?

[ryudo]

So if I walked into a movie and watched only 20 min of it would it be fair to give a review on it?

[dreaded-gazebo]

I'm not sure what the big deal is. He made it clear that he didn't finish a full game so we can put his thoughts in context. It's not like he was doing a complete review without being honest about how much of it he actually played. So long as we know does it really matter? He also said that it seemed like Civ Rev was a very good game, just not one for him. Seems fair enough to me.

Given how quickly they generally get around to talking about games after they've been released I think they give a pretty good insight. Again, so long as we know how much they've played I think it's not hard to put their thoughts in context.

So if I walked into a movie and watched only 20 min of it would it be fair to give a review on it?

If you stated that you've only seen the first 20 minutes... sure, why not?

[stubadub]

So if I walked into a movie and watched only 20 min of it would it be fair to give a review on it?
It would be fair if you informed us that you'd only seen the first 20 minutes, yes. I would consider it deceitful if you were making a statement about the entirety of the film without telling us that you hadn't watched all of it. With that information I could decide whether or not I wanted to consider your review when determining whether or not to watch the film.

It's not very realistic to expect Alex to be able to finish most of these games considering his schedule. Completing a game is a much bigger time commitment than a film.

How many people walk out of a theater before the movie is over? How many people play games without completing them? I'd say there is a much higher percentage of people that don't complete games. Most often you consume a movie in a single block of time, whereas a game is split up into many blocks of time. If you were to typically split a movie over weeks the opportunity to skip it when you weren't enjoying it would be much greater.

I have definitely played games where my opinion has changed later in the game, but it is a game designer's job to engage you within the first hour or two of play. If that doesn't happen the only people that will stick around are those invested in that particular genre, people that paid for the game and don't have anything else to play, or hardcore gamers that feel the need to keep trudging through the muck to see if the terrain improves. Considering that I think it is very appropriate to hear someone say "I couldn't get into this game. I'm four hours in and I can't take anymore."

[siraim]

So if I walked into a movie and watched only 20 min of it would it be fair to give a review on it?

So, we should really discount Jeffs opinion on movies because he has walked out of movies?

[poltah]

I have just been watching the most recent episode of TRS, and I picked up on the fact that many times, Alex doesn't finish the games that he is given. MGS4, not finished. Braid, a game that must be finished to get the full enjoyment out of it..neglected to be finished, Civilization Revolution, not finished.

Finish the game. Do not review the game unless you finish it. You could not give a fair review of games such as MGS4 or Braid especially unless it is completed. Please, you get to see movies and play games for a career, the least you could do is finish the games.

I disagree. If he doesn't like a game half way through, the game should get a more negative review.

Games aren't like movies where it takes 2 hours to get everything. If I have to play 5+ hours of a game, it better well be entertaining all the way through. If not, I'm gonna stop playing the game. No ending is worth playing a game, you don't like.

[ryudo]

So, we should really discount Jeffs opinion on movies because he has walked out of movies?

Don't watch TRS.

Just like the forums:p

However I thought it was just common sense to finish something before reviewing.

Otherwise you can't give a fair review.

You can't review the entire thing if you only experienced one part.

You can say "from what I played/Saw I thought ..etc..etc.. but I did not finish so can't give a full fair review"

[dreaded-gazebo]

I guess I've never really considered their games segment to be a true review segment. Rarely have all (or any) of the guys actually finished the game they are talking about and then there are games like Civ Rev which are never really "finished" (although in theory Alex could've finished a single match ;)). It's just three guys discussing aspects of games they've been playing recently. Which I love because it's exactly what I do with my friends when we sit down and start talking games.

The games segment of TRS certainly is different from the other parts of the show but that's why I love it.

[aerodash84]

So if I walked into a movie and watched only 20 min of it would it be fair to give a review on it?

If you hated the movie you can state your opinion like they do. I watched about 20 minutes of Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie and couldn't bring myself to watch anymore. It just wasn't my taste of movie. They give their views on genres of films or games before going on usually.

I've played some really bad games and stopped playing or some I've finished. I didn't enjoy it. They are just giving their opinions on what the movie, game and what not. Also, a movie is maybe 2 and a half hours max. Lots of game review sites get games far in advance to beat and review in full detail. These guys lots of times get a week from release to share a copy often times. I'm sure Jeff and Dan hasn't finished many of the games they review. I believe they've admitted to beating games like BioShock, MGS 4, and many others. Not all games are Devil May Cry 4 where you can knock it out in a weekend for a few hours.

[ryudo]

Since I don't watch TRS (only saw maybe a couple eps a year ago)

Someone tell me this.
Is it a real review like or just a "so I have been playing _____ and what I get from it is..etc.." type of discussion thing like with a couple buddies.
Because if it's the latter then I agree you don't need to.

However it is is the previous I played ________ and (detail of actual pros cons and details about music story what they aimed for controls and visuals etc" final score ??/10
Then yes a full play through is needed.

Some genres of games have a build up may start slow on purpose then gets very deep in the end.

Phoenix wright cases are very much like that or RPGS,point and click adventure etc..

[burkhartmj]

I've always appreciated that Alex kind of represents the ADD and/or busy person in all of us. If a game isn't worth playing in the first couple of hours, I don't care how epic the end is, and Alex does the same thing. Usually at least one of them has finished, so he usually keeps the other 2 in line as far as stuff related to them not finishing, so it balances out nicely to accommodate almost every kind of gamer out there.

WoW being mentioned every 10 seconds does get old though :rolleyes:

[ricekrispies]

Games aren't like movies where it takes 2 hours to get everything. If I have to play 5+ hours of a game, it better well be entertaining all the way through. If not, I'm gonna stop playing the game. No ending is worth playing a game, you don't like.

i second that, i think alex has made it clear that what he didn't enjoy about the games was the gameplay. braid for instance was the fact that he could not get into the "platforming." its different from movies because movies are progressive in the way that it has to lead you through a sequence of events to give you the full experience. gameplay immerses you into a rule of systems and you either like the mechanics or don't

[poltah]

Exactly. If you didn't like the first 50% of Bioshock, chances are you won't like the rest of the game.

You can still review the graphics, you can still make an opinion on the gameplay by playing like half of a game. I'd even say that in the way that games tell stories now, you can even talk about that.

I have never come across a game that I didn't like, and then all of the sudden after playing halfway through, I started to love it.

[siraim]

Don't watch TRS.

Just like the forums:p


Thanks for playing.. I'm out. The point is that they're not "reviewing" the games.. they're giving their impressions. Impressions can be formed quickly. Impressions can be formed reasonably. Impressions don't need to be complete views of the entire product.

Need a review? There are places that will provide that. Need an impression from just a bunch of guys that think like many of us do? Check out TRS and be entertained.

[ryudo]

Thanks for playing.. I'm out. The point is that they're not "reviewing" the games.. they're giving their impressions. Impressions can be formed quickly. Impressions can be formed reasonably. Impressions don't need to be complete views of the entire product.

That is what I was asking later.
Maybe could have worded better.

Since people keep going on they review games like a reviewer then it would not be fair to play a little and give it a score.

However you say they don't review just give an impression on what they have played so far.
In that case it's fine to not complete it. I do that alot amongst friends.


a review to me is so many stars out of 5 or a score out of 10 with a full description.

So just an impression,then hell fine by me.:)

[masherscf]

A game is like sex. It's not just about the ending. If the game isn't fun enough to keep someone engaged until the end, that's a critique in itself.

[samureye]

A game is like sex. It's not just about the ending. If the game isn't fun enough to keep someone engaged until the end, that's a critique in itself.
Doesn't say much if the person isn't really open to much outside what they know they like.

[satori]

A game is like sex. It's not just about the ending. If the game isn't fun enough to keep someone engaged until the end, that's a critique in itself.

I would buy this notion if it weren't for the fact that they rarely finish a game prior to discussion. I don't know about you, but if you're going to bring sex into this, I personally prefer to finish.

I accept that the reviews or impressions are not full reviews, but it does make me laugh a little.

People walking out on films in the first 20 minutes and then reviewing them though is simply annoying to me. If you don't see it, just say you walked out and don't review it. I think Jeff pretty much doesn't review it which I'm fine with.

[lik]

i think the TRS guys have mentioned that they don't think you need to finish a game to do a review. but i agree with OP that some games need to be enjoyed in their full finished glory before you can do a proper review.

i think Alex and the TRS guys needs to call them "impressions" rather than reviews if they only played a game partially.

[dolson]

If ever there was a doubt as to if they are giving reviews or impressions, you need not look further than the past couple weeks where they talk about playing the demos versus the full games, at times.

Nobody ever reviewed a game based on a demo. Those are impressions.

[masherscf]

I think this conversation is ironic. In the 8 and 16-bit Nintendo era, designers would often focus most of their development on the first levels of a game. It seemed that these level would sell the game and once the game was purchased the rest could be garbage or that developers ran out of money and didn't fully develop later stages. There are a few classic titles that buck this trend, of course. But, being disappointed the closing stages of a video game was not uncommon.

Could the opposite now be true?

[spamminator]

I'm gonna jump in here and commend Alex on at least giving full disclosure on the amount of a game that he's played before giving his review. I think he's well aware that he can't review the full game if he hasn't played it fully. In the Civ Rev review itself he said that he can't comment on the gameplay since he didn't really play all the way though, but he could comment on the graphics and controls.

[spamminator]

I think this conversation is ironic. In the 8 and 16-bit Nintendo era, designers would often focus most of their development on the first levels of a game. It seemed that these level would sell the game and once the game was purchased the rest could be garbage or that developers ran out of money and didn't fully develop later stages. There are a few classic titles that buck this trend, of course. But, being disappointed the closing stages of a video game was not uncommon.

Could the opposite now be true?

Sorry to double post...

I think a lot of the time in current games the creator comes up with an idea for a killer end game you can work up to, and then works backward to "well, here's what you start out as". I don't think it's that games now start out bad, it's that once you get to the endgame and can do all these awesome things, looking back on what you could do in the beginning makes it seem trivial and boring. For example, Crackdown -- in the beginning you could barely jump on the lowest ledges, compared to leaping from building to building at the end. Was the beginning of that game bad? No, it just seems so much less fun than all you could do by the end.

[kilroyperrywinkle]

Don't watch TRS.


Well Hypocrite, if you dont watch TRS how can you be in a forum about it? You can't expect someone to put the effort into something you're unwilling to yourself.

I'd never play a game I didn't like just to say I didn't like it. I wouldn't eat a meal I found disgusting, and I wouldn't post in a TRS forum without watching TRS.

[siraim]

Well Hypocrite, if you dont watch TRS how can you be in a forum about it? You can't expect someone to put the effort into something you're unwilling to yourself.

I'd never play a game I didn't like just to say I didn't like it. I wouldn't eat a meal I found disgusting, and I wouldn't post in a TRS forum without watching TRS.

Would you tug on Superman's cape?

[stubadub]

I think this conversation is ironic. In the 8 and 16-bit Nintendo era, designers would often focus most of their development on the first levels of a game. It seemed that these level would sell the game and once the game was purchased the rest could be garbage or that developers ran out of money and didn't fully develop later stages. There are a few classic titles that buck this trend, of course. But, being disappointed the closing stages of a video game was not uncommon.

Could the opposite now be true?

Yeah, I'd say the opposite is often true nowadays, with games slowly unveiling new gameplay mechanics and plot twists as you move through. In the early days narrative in games was mostly nonexistant, but games are increasingly relying on narrative as a significant piece of the puzzle.

Psychonauts is a game that got amazing critical praise. Play through the first few levels and it is funny and a little deserving of the praise. Each level after that introduces gameplay concepts that redefine how you play, and manages to keep surprising you with the humor. Around the milkman level you really start to get a good feel for why the game was so highly praised.

You can get a good feel for Bioshock within a few hours of playing, but the weight of the narrative doesn't have full impact until you're within a couple of hours of completing the game. The story moments there have such a huge impact, though, that it really is hard to fairly evaluate the game without experiencing those.

At the same time, if you aren't enjoying these games after playing for five hours that probably won't change for you if you continue on, so it seems fair to say that it isn't for you. It's just impossible from that perspective to truly appreciate how much of a "Holy Shit!" experience the rest of us had.

[dolson]

A few more examples are:

Resistance Fall of Man - the first few levels were pretty meh, but the best parts are from the mididle to the end, in my opinion.

Metal Gear Solid 4 - seemed to get better with each act, and the gameplay changed up several times throughout. It's a really short game anyhow, so to review it without getting through it is kinda silly. Impressions, sure.

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune - there's a gameplay change maybe 1/3 to 3/4 or so of the way through, and for some people, it can make or break the entire game. Someone who reviewed the game without getting that far would come off as ignorant. Impressions - ok.

darkSector - imagine someone who reviewed the game after playing the first 20 minutes or whatever? They wouldn't even have the glaive yet, let alone all the other abilities you get as you progress.

There're more examples, to be sure. But most games do evolve over time these days, because if not, they'll be butchered by the critics for being too repetitive and not having variety or evolution. That's just how it is.

[siraim]

A few more examples are:

Resistance Fall of Man - ....
Metal Gear Solid 4 - ....

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune - ....
.....

I see a very PS3 centric view in your game list. ;P

I agree.. those games changed the gameplay mechanic over time and revealed a deeper system beneath the surface that is shown to you from the onset. I believe this is one of the things that Danny likes about games. I agree with him. There are some games that work well in with a single gameplay mechanic being employed through the entire game but I also can appreciate the subtle gameplay changes throughout certain titles.

With all of that, no matter how some games may evolve over time and reveal the nuance of their control scheme or mechanic, I'm going to stop playing if the game doesn't excite me or give me a reason to continue. Sadly, Bioshock fell into this category for me. Every chance I gave the game, I'd get a little further and each time something about the game just bothered me.

[satori]

OK, I'd like to start an experiment, only go to work for the first hour, see what your boss says, then post back here. :D

[stranger_danger]

I think this conversation is ironic. In the 8 and 16-bit Nintendo era, designers would often focus most of their development on the first levels of a game. It seemed that these level would sell the game and once the game was purchased the rest could be garbage or that developers ran out of money and didn't fully develop later stages.

I can't think of a single game that did this. They almost all had terrible endings, but the last few stages and boss fights usually were my favorite. Would you mind listing a few of the games you had in mind?

As far as giving impressions after playing a game for a few hours, I'm glad TRS does this. If a game is brilliant after having been terrible for a few hours then the game isn't brilliant. I can't think of a single work in any other media that is highly regarded when half of it is garbage. Why should games be different? Dolson mentioned the first few levels of Resistance being inferior to the later levels. I never played the later levels because the beginning levels were so substandard. There are plenty of games to play that are good from beginning to end, so why waste time playing a game that's really only worth playing once it's half over?

Furthermore, most of us (presumably) have been playing games for a long time and I think we can tell weather a game will be worth playing within a few minutes of picking up the controller. Alex new CivRev wasn't for him, but could tell it was a good game. That's a good thing. I'd feel sorry for anyone that couldn't refer to past experience when playing a new game to figure out if they'd like it or not before wasting days playing it.

[siraim]

OK, I'd like to start an experiment, only go to work for the first hour, see what your boss says, then post back here. :D

my impression and my review of my work day would be the same.. awesome work day. :D

[damnedeyez]

I can't think of a single work in any other media that is highly regarded when half of it is garbage.

Maybe not garbage, but you read, rather often on this board, about TV shows where a season starts off not so good, or the first season or two isn't that great 'but you have to get to season/episode X' or somesuch.

[siraim]

I can't think of a single game that did this. They almost all had terrible endings, but the last few stages and boss fights usually were my favorite. Would you mind listing a few of the games you had in mind?

Sadly, the only one I've got off the top of my head is the DS version of Super Mario.. the beginning of the game showed me every mechanic that I'd need for the rest of the game and by the end of the game, the process of getting through worlds was tedious and the level design at the beginning of the game was far better than later worlds/stages.

[darthender]

Originally, this didn't bother me because supposedly the shows format was not "reviews" at all. Its was just 3 guys talking about something.

Unfortunately, that was in the beginning. Now it's 100% review show format. So yeah, its kinda unprofessional.

[stranger_danger]

Sadly, the only one I've got off the top of my head is the DS version of Super Mario.. the beginning of the game showed me every mechanic that I'd need for the rest of the game and by the end of the game, the process of getting through worlds was tedious and the level design at the beginning of the game was far better than later worlds/stages.

masherscf was referring to the 8 and 16-bit Nintendo era.

I like when a game gives you everything you need right from the beginning and relies on varied level design and different enemies to keep the game moving. Treasure are masters of this; the team behind New Super Mario are not. I don't wholly agree with your assessment of the game, though. I don't think the later levels were worse than the beginning levels, but they certainly were no better, either. I almost didn't bother finishing it because the later levels felt stale.

[dolson]

I see a very PS3 centric view in your game list. ;P

Feel free to list 360 games... I can't, since I don't own a 360, and therefore can't speak from experience.

I'd list a Wii game, if any actually applied to this topic.

[lik]

Feel free to list 360 games... I can't, since I don't own a 360, and therefore can't speak from experience.

I'd list a Wii game, if any actually applied to this topic.

Braid starts out simple but it gets better and better later on. some people who only played the demo didn't think it was so special cuz they only played the first World.

Lost Odyssey starts out pretty slow but it gets better and better as you meet more characters and you learn about them more. you also aquire better moves and weapons later so it becomes more fun as well.

Dark Sector applies here as well since it's multiplatform, hehe.

[satori]

Originally, this didn't bother me because supposedly the shows format was not "reviews" at all. Its was just 3 guys talking about something.

Unfortunately, that was in the beginning. Now it's 100% review show format. So yeah, its kinda unprofessional.

Yeah, I think the only time I was at all bothered by it was when they did a 'best of 2007' and the reviews that'd been shown weren't finished games, and how can they proclaim a best of when the only PC game that I know they've played is WoW.

Still, I do love the conversations on gaming so as long as they avoided any pretense that this was a review section rather than a discussion section I'd be quite happy.

[siraim]

Feel free to list 360 games... I can't, since I don't own a 360, and therefore can't speak from experience.

I'd list a Wii game, if any actually applied to this topic.

I was kidding.. you're the resident PS3 geek and I was drawing attention to it. I will be more overt in the future.

[forbizzle]

Once you hit your mid 20s, you'll find you now have the money to buy all the games you're interested in, but you don't have the time. Alex may not represent your point of view, but he does add value for others.

If you have the time to waste 10+ hours before a game presents itself as worthwhile, good for you. But some of us would rather spend the time we do have on games that are better.

Reviewers aren't there to validate your opinion.

[johnnysix]

Honestly, in this day and age where time is as much a commodity as the dollar, do you really expect somebody to slog through hours of a game they do not like for the slight chance they may like it more in the long run? Also, comparing it to movies is bunk. Even a bad film only steals away 2 to 3 hours of your life. On the times Alex has admitted to only playing a portion of a game, he has always given it at least this much time. I totally want that opinion. It's pretentious to expect somebody to put in time to play something they're not enjoying. If a game can't communicate what it's about in 2 or 3 hours then in my opinion, it's not worth playing. That's the fault of the game designer(s). I love Braid, however, I don't think a person who doesn't like playing the first few worlds will enjoy it any more if they finish it.

[dolson]

I was kidding.. you're the resident PS3 geek and I was drawing attention to it. I will be more overt in the future.

Heh, I thought that, but wasn't sure.. I would have listed 360 games had I played any very long, or more multiplatform games had I thought of any.

Is it a good thing that you consider me that, though?

[satori]

If you only played the first 2 or 3 hours of System Shock 2 you would of been entirely uninterested as the start is extremely slow and all you have is a pipe to bash things with. If you only played the first 2 to 3 hours of Jedi Knight 2 I would suggest you'd be in the same boat. Both games started out as limited FPS games, and it wasn't until the characters started leveling up that they really became compelling. That's not bad design, in fact that's excellent design. In your model why not simply limit ourselves to what the write up is on the box. Any good marketer should be able to sum up the game on the box.

[gonzooo]

Pacing is a very important part of game design. If a game isn't paced in an enticing manner it should be criticized for it, and you shouldn't be able to blame anyone for not wanting to play a game after having played "the shitty part".

Everyone has a favorite game they recognize is paced horribly (or don't recognize, but jump through hoops to tell you about it using other words), but that doesn't make it "excellent design" or even acceptable design.

[dolson]

If you only played the first 2 or 3 hours of System Shock 2 you would of been entirely uninterested as the start is extremely slow and all you have is a pipe to bash things with.

Well, I had thinner skin when SS2 came out... I borrowed it from a buddy, and I only played it for about 10 minutes before giving up.

The only thing I remember was trying to open a door when all of a sudden a zombie (or something) appeared from nowhere behind me and yelled really loud and scared the living shit right out of me.

I haven't ever tried it since then... Was it really that bad? Or was I just a big pussy back then?

[stubadub]

If you only played the first 2 or 3 hours of System Shock 2 you would of been entirely uninterested as the start is extremely slow and all you have is a pipe to bash things with. If you only played the first 2 to 3 hours of Jedi Knight 2 I would suggest you'd be in the same boat. Both games started out as limited FPS games, and it wasn't until the characters started leveling up that they really became compelling. That's not bad design, in fact that's excellent design.

I think that evolving gameplay and increasing reward/engagement is an element of excellent design, but another piece of that puzzle is engagement early on. You can have the most fantastic game, but if it comes after hours of dullsville few will experience it. Part of good game design is making sure people are compelled to continue playing. It doesn't matter much that the latter half of the game exhibits this trait if so many people check out before they get there.

I would also say that I didn't find System Shock 2 nearly as dull at the beginning as you did, but it did get consistently more awesome as it went along.

[jaylaf]

Alex definitely gives the ADD version in most of his discussions (all categories). He's the one most likely to come off as putting little to no effort into what he says. He's also the one most likely to go into a game discussion/review/impression with the strongest preconceived notion, and least likely to put that impression aside for the purpose of giving a game a fair shake.

We've seen him decide he wanted nothing to do with a game on PS3, only to flip-flop when he found out it was on 360 too.

He acted surprised about the Wonders in Civilization. Really? How long could you actualy play, to not know about them?

I do like Alex. He's pretty damn funny and the show definitely wouldn't be the same, if it was just Jeff and Dan hosting, but his opinions carry the least weight for me.

[ike6116]

Alex being wishy washy on games like that serves a purpose.

I always balance between Alex and Jeff.

Alex is predisposed to write off a game and be like "not worth my time"

Jeff is predisposed to try to read into elements of the game that aren't even really the game like the supposed "message" or the art of the game.

It's perfect.

It's a Microcosm of the geek community. Think about it in these terms:

Someone More Like Alex: "Macs suck they are too expensive."
Someone More Like Jeff: "Using a Mac is not using a computer it's EXPERIENCING a computer"

Personally, I see aspects of my own personality in all three and I think there's utility in that.

I'm just like Alex in the whole thing with Strategy games. He doesn't like them, I don't like them he wasn't compelled to keep playing I highly doubt I would be either. Thanks Alex, for not wasting either of our time.

Braid: I played and loved. But Jeff was a LITTLE too high on the existential story part of it (Completely separate from the game play btw) which I think were borderline ridiculous, for a better illustration of my point, see the Zero Punctuation: Braid episode.

[jaylaf]

Alex being wishy washy on games like that serves a purpose.

I always balance between Alex and Jeff.

Alex is predisposed to write off a game and be like "not worth my time"

Jeff is predisposed to try to read into elements of the game that aren't even really the game like the supposed "message" or the art of the game.

It's perfect.

It's a Microcosm of the geek community.



Heh. I like that. It works. It's surprising (to me) how many people primarily relate to Alex. I can't remember where, but it seems like I saw the results of a poll on the TRS site. Who'd a thunk...

[damnedeyez]

Heh. I like that. It works. It's surprising (to me) how many people primarily relate to Alex. I can't remember where, but it seems like I saw the results of a poll on the TRS site. Who'd a thunk...


Yeah...definitely don't relate to him with games at all, myself. (Movies is a different story though)...but they do counterbalance each other.

[johnnysix]

Braid: I played and loved. But Jeff was a LITTLE too high on the existential story part of it (Completely separate from the game play btw) which I think were borderline ridiculous, for a better illustration of my point, see the Zero Punctuation: Braid episode.

I would argue that the story part of Braid was STRONGLY linked to the gameplay, you just had to think about it. Each new part of the story reflected the new gameplay elements. For example, it tells of how sometimes he wished he could go back and change something he did wrong and things could go on as if nothing ever happened whilst still retaining the experience he had from making that mistake. That's EXACTLY what the first mechanic in the game is. You are able to rewind time and proceed as if you never made a certain choice, whilst still knowing what will happen if you make that choice.Another example is how later in the game a new mechanic is introduced and the story (memory is fuzzy) tells of how after having left on his journey, life at home proceeds as if he had never left. This is very stongly tied to the new gameplay mechanic. I think there are very strong links to the gameplay (like in no other game I know of), you just have to think about it.

[spamminator]

I would argue that the story part of Braid was STRONGLY linked to the gameplay, you just had to think about it. Each new part of the story reflected the new gameplay elements. For example, it tells of how sometimes he wished he could go back and change something he did wrong and things could go on as if nothing ever happened whilst still retaining the experience he had from making that mistake. That's EXACTLY what the first mechanic in the game is. You are able to rewind time and proceed as if you never made a certain choice, whilst still knowing what will happen if you make that choice.Another example is how later in the game a new mechanic is introduced and the story (memory is fuzzy) tells of how after having left on his journey, life at home proceeds as if he had never left. This is very stongly tied to the new gameplay mechanic. I think there are very strong links to the gameplay (like in no other game I know of), you just have to think about it.

I agree that the story tells you what your new power on each level is, but the narrative itself is...well, pants.

[satori]

I love that this thread is still going... you think Alex saw it? ;)

[lik]

I love that this thread is still going... you think Alex saw it? ;)

probably not :P

[gonzooo]

I love that this thread is still going... you think Alex saw it? ;)
He probably read 1/3 of it and concluded it was shit. :)

[skwiddly]

I think you just have to take it with a grain of salt. they guys can't make it through every game before they review it, but as long as they state that in the review you know what they are opining about. It just like the fact that Dan can talk for days about a movie, but when it comes to comics or some games he barely gives out more than a one sentence review. Each guy has brings a different slant on what they are reviewing. I for one find the game reivews a bit sparse by the guys, but I expect that, and knowing what type of game each guy like helps me decide if I really would agree with their review.

[njshadow]

Car and Driver don't have to drive a car until it is towed away in order to understand the nature of the car.. why do people have to play through an entire game to give their opinion on the game?

Well, in the case of MGS4, you really do have to finish the game to get the FULL effect. The game is INCREDIBLE throughout, BUT the final chapter really has you going "HOLY CRAP, THIS IS AMAZING!!"

[callen]

I have no problem with the guys not finishing the games as given the schedules they have to keep to get the show done it is understandable. Plus I do see it as them simply discussing their impressions of the game more so than reviewing it. And the same really can be said about the movie and TV segments as well. If they were in fact assigning some kind of score or ranking to the games then it would definitely be an issue as I do feel that completing the game would be essential for this type of system.

I know for me that when it comes to games I will only pick up the ones I intend to play through completely. I don't have unlimited time for games, so the ones I do choose to play I attempt to get the most out of. And I am sure these guys try to do the same with the games that they choose to play outside of that which is played for discussion purposes on the show.

[stubadub]

He probably read 1/3 of it and concluded it was shit. :)

Classic.

[dolson]

He probably read 1/3 of it and concluded it was shit. :)

lol, best post of the thread. And with it, we can close it.

[stranger_danger]

Uh...sorry dolson. Not closed.

Well, in the case of MGS4, you really do have to finish the game to get the FULL effect. The game is INCREDIBLE throughout, BUT the final chapter really has you going "HOLY CRAP, THIS IS AMAZING!!"

I think you've missed something here. To get the FULL effect, yes, of course you have to play the entire game including sitting through the credits. But when the beginning of a game blows, why should a person think that it's worth continuing with? If the first four hours of MGS4 sucked, would your impressions of the full experience be different in any way than they are now?

[inertianinja]

i was annoyed by the Braid review as well, since i'm more on the "Jeff" side of the spectrum. but upon further reflection, i think it's all good. they're different people, reviewing from different perspectives, and peacefully co-existing. it's the way we should all be.

i was more like alex when i was a little younger (i'm 27) - more into instant action and frig-the-story. the type that hits buttons to skip the story part.

now, returning to games, i'm fucking blown away by this 'new' medium that's moving me, scaring me, getting me psyched, and generally doing all the things that good movies have done. more like jeff.

[dolson]

Uh...sorry dolson. Not closed.



I think you've missed something here. To get the FULL effect, yes, of course you have to play the entire game including sitting through the credits. But when the beginning of a game blows, why should a person think that it's worth continuing with? If the first four hours of MGS4 sucked, would your impressions of the full experience be different in any way than they are now?

Let the record show that the first four hours of ANY game can suck if you boot up the game and don't touch the controller for 3 hours and 55 minutes.

[stranger_danger]

Let the record show that the first four hours of ANY game can suck if you boot up the game and don't touch the controller for 3 hours and 55 minutes.

LOL! Not if that game has a 3 hour and 55 minute attract screen (are they even called that on consoles?)!

[Bret]

I have just been watching the most recent episode of TRS, and I picked up on the fact that many times, Alex doesn't finish the games that he is given. MGS4, not finished. Braid, a game that must be finished to get the full enjoyment out of it..neglected to be finished, Civilization Revolution, not finished.

Finish the game. Do not review the game unless you finish it. You could not give a fair review of games such as MGS4 or Braid especially unless it is completed. Please, you get to see movies and play games for a career, the least you could do is finish the games.
Incorrect sir. Im sorry, but if a game cant entertain me through the whole process, or I find it mind numbing I dont care how good the ending is. A good ending doesnt make up for a shit beginning and middle.

If a movie is complete shit for the first 60 minutes should I keep watching? No. Find a way to tell the story and keep it interesting and entertaining the whole time. If the storyteller cant do that, Oh well. Alex doesnt have to finish something to review it.

[lik]

Incorrect sir. Im sorry, but if a game cant entertain me through the whole process, or I find it mind numbing I dont care how good the ending is. A good ending doesnt make up for a shit beginning and middle.

If a movie is complete shit for the first 60 minutes should I keep watching? No. Find a way to tell the story and keep it interesting and entertaining the whole time. If the storyteller cant do that, Oh well. Alex doesnt have to finish something to review it.

sadly the TRS guys have sat thru a bunch of shit movies in order to review them. they mentioned that they wanted to walk outta a few movies in previous shows. but 2 hours is definitely different than 10+ hours in a video game.

[Bret]

sadly the TRS guys have sat thru a bunch of shit movies in order to review them. they mentioned that they wanted to walk outta a few movies in previous shows. but 2 hours is definitely different than 10+ hours in a video game.

Yea I can see why they sit through the movies, I always do even if i hate a movie. I just sat through Midnight meat train even though the whole movie was a pile of crud. In my opinion tho, I dont believe someone has to sit through a whole game or a movie to form an oppinion about it. If Alex cant stand to sit through a whole videogame, its understandable. Among them being that TRS is not his only job. Plus I just enjoy people ripping on Bad movies more than i do video games. Its just fun to watch lol

[lik]

Yea I can see why they sit through the movies, I always do even if i hate a movie. I just sat through Midnight meat train even though the whole movie was a pile of crud. In my opinion tho, I dont believe someone has to sit through a whole game or a movie to form an oppinion about it. If Alex cant stand to sit through a whole videogame, its understandable. Among them being that TRS is not his only job. Plus I just enjoy people ripping on Bad movies more than i do video games. Its just fun to watch lol

yea, gotta love the Mummy 3 review, lol

[dozerking]

I have just been watching the most recent episode of TRS, and I picked up on the fact that many times, Alex doesn't finish the games that he is given. MGS4, not finished. Braid, a game that must be finished to get the full enjoyment out of it..neglected to be finished, Civilization Revolution, not finished.

Finish the game. Do not review the game unless you finish it. You could not give a fair review of games such as MGS4 or Braid especially unless it is completed. Please, you get to see movies and play games for a career, the least you could do is finish the games.

If Alex doesn't want to give his opinion, so be it. Listen to what Jeff and Dan have to say. Also, who gives a shit?

That's why there are not ONE, but THREE guys reviewing stuff. I like the fact that he's honest about it too. Braid is a great little quirky 2d side scroller but it's forgettable and annoying and I 100% agree with Alex's position on Braid. Too much frothing of the mouth over it that I found a bit annoying. With Civ, you don't complete Civ, you play it like cards, it's the type of game you play a little bit of here and there and play it over and over, that's how all the Civ games are. If it's not his style of genre, which he came right out and said, again being honest, then so be it! Let the other guys review it, it was something that Jeff wanted to bring up on the show for himself anyway, you could tell.

Thirdly, the same with MGS4, I know many people that can't stand it, the story is convoluted, albeit interesting to a point, but the gameplay is severely lacking, and it feels like a goddamn anime half the time. Overall, it was a fun experience but not enough to run out and buy a PS3 over. Either way, it's not a game I would think Alex would enjoy, so let Jeff and Dan tear it up. Most would probably bitch and whine if Alex gave it a bad review, so it's pointless.

Also, you can walk out of a movie as well, if you don't like something you don't like it. I don't mind anyone not wanting to complete something, especially since all three guys have different personalities, and it's nice to hear from at least 2 of them on a given subject, hell, I wouldn't complain about hearing from just one of the guys, the show is free afterall and it's always damn good, whether someone completes something or not.

[dozerking]

Incorrect sir. Im sorry, but if a game cant entertain me through the whole process, or I find it mind numbing I dont care how good the ending is. A good ending doesnt make up for a shit beginning and middle.

If a movie is complete shit for the first 60 minutes should I keep watching? No. Find a way to tell the story and keep it interesting and entertaining the whole time. If the storyteller cant do that, Oh well. Alex doesnt have to finish something to review it.


Agreed 100%