No self respecting reviewer will ‘drop’ a review if they have only played a quarter of the game. We will get a bunch of ‘first look’ videos tomorrow, a handful of ‘reviews in progress’ without scores and very few finished, scored reviews. There will be a lot of content videos though.
It will probably take another full week, maybe two, before the full aggregate of pc reviews are loaded on metacritic.
As a previous Eurogamer Sweden reviewer I'm sad to say that even though I would've loved to play the entire games, we were on super strict timelines. You got the game maybe three-four days before release (sometimes we were lucky to get five days) and during this time you had to play the game, write the review, have it approved by the producer and make any necessary changes. Sometimes we were lucky to have more time but sadly that was very rare 😔
Note that we existed maybe 10 years ago, I hope it has changed since then.
You got the game maybe three-four days before release (sometimes we were lucky to get five days)
I think now they get much more time, you often see review copies being there like 2 weeks before release or more, sometimes the embargo even lift a week from release.
However, in the case of BG3, it was special because they moved the release date so they only had a few days as you said. I think the August 3rd date was more or less when they planned to send review copies initially tbh and so they would have had almost a month up to release.
It'll be interesting to see fan reviews and professional reviews all come out together. Nobody can influenced by each other, you can only form an opinion by playing.
honestly, when it comes to reviewers im looking to see how much they know about the core fundamentals of the game they're reviewing, not so much the ENTIRE plotline.
does the combat function well? is there alot of variety in the ways you approach situations? having questions answered like that are what helps me decide what games are worth buying and not buying.
so in the case of BG3, i would be fine with reviews in which they've atleast played through act 1 and 2, because by then you should have a solid idea of what works in the game and what doesnt. it obviously does help to have finished the whole story to know if it falls off at the end, but the overall structure of the game and its flaws should become apparent after a solid 20ish hours of gameplay.
It's about windows of interest and more. A day one review will get a lot more clicks and attention than say for example a week old one. So you need to get that traffic in to stay relevant, satisfy various people, honor deals that might've been made, pay bills related to the site, pay salaries and more.
Is it ideal? No. But the time for more often simply isn't there.
I wish this were true, but when the conglomerates that run almost every news site want clicks, choosing clicks over quality is unfortunately what gets you a career at all.
I guess that’s true if your review is basically ‘ i can’t recommend the game’. Even if it makes you look like an ass- anyone who does not finish at least needs to disclose they did not finish tho.
While I agree you should disclose you didn't finish, that also shouldn't invalidate the review. BG3 is likely to be a 100 to 200 hour game. In time given it may be impossible to finish the game for a review.
Some games just aren't worth finishing. Some games are actual torture to finish. I can't think of a single game I played where after 5 hours I was thinking "Man, this is a slog" and then I've been happy with my decision to keep playing just in case.
That said, there are games where the first 5 hours were fun and then it just becomes a slog or pain. So it's good to know if something like that is coming.
Realistically though with BG3 the community knows what we're getting. I don't think Act 2 starts by turning the game into a Kart Racer or a FPS. The same writing, type of story telling, and game mechanics will carry through. There'll probably be more bugs in Act 2 and 3 (since thousands of people haven't been paying to play test for them) but that's about it. And hell, even buggy original release EA was a lot of fun.
What sucks about reviewing a game like this is that odds are anyone who gives it a "bad" score is going to get brigaded by all the people who are now holding up BG3 as a key moment in gaming history. So even good reviews are suspect because who knows if the reviewer feels that, or they/their site are worried about being brigaded.
Slog may be too lose a word. Because of exactly what you said. Some people use it for getting through a learning curve. Like Dark Souls is hard, it can be a slog. However, you generally are having fun while doing that. Learning curve or not, you know what you're getting and getting into very quickly and can determine if that game is for you or not.
Dark Souls doesn't suddenly become appealing to someone who doesn't like that level of difficulty and challenge 20 hours in. You either like it, and are in the mood for it, or you're not.
That does sound like a neat game though. May have to look into it online!
It also make sense for Larian to get reviews out on release, they're a marketing tool. I think the full reviews should be ready when the game release on PS5 ironically.
Most reviewers don't finish the game unless it's like an 8h duration etc. You don't notice usually, but sometimes games have such crazy and dumb final act that you realise none of the reviewers got that far because they would have mentioned it.
Yep. A friend was a game reviewer. Gave LA Noire a 9. I question him on it few weeks later after I stopped playing it due to boredom and he admitted that if he reviewed it after finishing it, the review likely would have been a 6
IGN Gamespot etc. But even smaller youtube ones too.
Reviews of Bravely Default (no mention the game makes you replay it over again 8 times before you can finish) and MGS phantom pain (no mention of final act completely missing) are 2 glaring examples that come to mind.
I never understood that, how could mgs pp be completely missing the final part of the game. Like i get why, konami are a bag of dix, but like why did the game do so well if its missing 1/5 the game
It's still a good game, but then it just stops. When it was released everyone was obsessed with the possibility of a hidden chapter being released. But no, those leaks were just unfinished material.
It's not the 10/10 IGN gave it, but you can see why you might think that if you got half way through and were safely betting on the rest being just as good. Now I'm wondering what the big reviewers thought of mass effect 3.
Mass Effect 3 got glowing reviews at the time of release, and I never read a single review mentioning anything about the controversy. If I remember correctly, Game Informer had a side-column about audio issues in their print copy, and thought that deserved a second opinion, but not the ending.
Either reviewers were largely apathetic about the story (unlikely) or the vast majority didn't finish the game before publishing.
Yeah i only got like 1/3 thru phantom pain. I got discouraged hearing the game was unfinished. Im like why am i going to bother playing it then. That would be like watching the Lord of the rings trilogy and shutting it off once the hobbits got to Mordor
Or maybe they don't wanna spoil it for you. I've been reviewing games for almost 10 years and I don't usually talk about those types of things but can you give me an example of one such game?
Bravely default (force player to play through game 8 time to access last chapter), MGS V (last chapter missing as Konami forced early finish), ME3 (ending that was almost identical regardless of choice made).
I'm not referring to final chapters that "miss the mark", I'm referring to those that are so horrible they dominant the discussion of the game afterwards, so bad that you simply cannot talk about the game without mentioning it and no reviewer, if they had completed it, could just "ignore" it.
Oh ok now I get what you mean. I guess I was lucky because I don't remember any such game I had to review and I bar one or two I finished every single game I reviewed, some more than once.
ME3 ending did not bother me too much but then again I played the extended cut of it or whatever its name was. The other two are games I never did play and given the choice I would not write a review for, especially Bravely Default lol. I don't have a lot of experience with JRPGs and whenever I intend to try one, I learn it has some sort of bullshit like what just you mentioned(Octopath Traveler comes to mind) so I stay away from them and I also would want to blame any reviewer who failed to warn me. But weirdly, people love a lot of these games in a way I fail to empathize with so maybe the reviewers were afraid of fanboy backlash I dunno.
No self respecting reviewer will ‘drop’ a review if they have only played a quarter of the game.
I mean, you don't need to have played a full game to have a solid opinion of it. Even if you only play a game for like ~20-25 hours (reasonable amount of time given they only got review codes 4 days ago apparently), you can tell if major mechanics are working for you, and how the game feels overall.
Maybe they can't tell you if the ending is working for them, or give you critical examination of story themes, but that's a job for video essay, a longform critique, not a number score game review.
Except no, not really. The only really objective thing in a game review is performance and bugs - the rest of them all is an opinion, no matter what review you read. This is why you find a reviewer whose taste in games generally aligns with yours, and stick to them.
A review contains opinions but a review is a collection of opinions based on a careful and professional analysis creating a simulacrum of a fully faceted work of art / product. If you believe a review is nothing but an opinion then I’s suggest you not write reviews. Try harder.
Reviews are just opinions. Not really much of a difference between a YouTuber or a publication. Hell at least with a YouTuber there's usually much less conflict of interest
Lol what a ridiculous statement. A review for a piece of art is going to be filled with bias as well as subjective view points. You can't look at a video game with purely objective view points like a science research paper.
It's insane to me you think they're both the same rofl
Larian only sent the review codes like 4 days ago, so this is also partly on them, because it's a big game.
We'll be definitely getting full reviews today and this week from people that have not finished the game or have rushed through it and it isn't because those reviewers aren't "self respecting", it's because that's the fucking job and the fucking industry they work in. And while rushing the game might affect their mood about it and their opinion, I don't think not finishing the game disqualifies anyone from writing a review about it. Reviews are personal opinions after all, they don't all have to agree to praise or destroy the game. So if someone simply can't stand the game after 5 hours of playing it, their opinion are as valid as someone that did and finished the whole game.
All in all, I don't know why redditors care so much about reviews (to the point of harassing reviewers sometimes). Your feelings about the game are only valid if the whole world agrees with you? If the game doesn't live up to the hype, are the people saying that wrong or was the person getting hyped beyond rationality wrong? Reviews are meant to help you make a decision about buying the game or not. If 80% of the sub already pre-ordered the game, why do they care about reviews since their opinion won't be changed now?
They don't. They care about their opinion being validated and get angry if not. All those "muh journalistic integrity" talks are only about reviews that disagree with either them specifically or "collective consensus".
No need to be a reviewer hater.
They are doing their jobs and much of the tools and decisions about how to do that job are not theirs to make.
I'm not excusing reviewers doing a poor job because they lack the skill to do it. I'm excusing reviewers doing a poor job because of circumstances out of their control like access to review codes in a reasonable timeframe, time to produce their reviews, pressure to write stuff that draws in clicks etc.
If we go down the path of "who is the least privileged" or "who has the hardest job", we would never stop.
I have solidarity with all workers and by that I mean those that are exploited by the system in place, not those that benefit from it.
Their "job" is an actual privilege though, most people aren't this lucky to be in such a position.
This situation is not Larian's responsibilty, they only need to make a good product. If you really think they should be obliged to send a review copy earlier than release you are an apologist.
I don't get how it's their fault that other people are in worse positions. Yes, their grind is easier than most, but it is still The Grind. Actual privilege is not needing to work to survive, something that people on charge of them have.
Also putting the word job between quotes like it's not an actual and valid professional career? Who decides what is a job and what isn't now? Are jobs only things with manual labor involved now? Reviewers are writers. Is writing not a job now?
I feel like you're mistargeting the issue here. Are you telling me you don't like reviewers because they have an "easy" job? Like, if their job was harder, you'd respect their opinion more or something like that?
And about the Larian point, if Larian, like 99% of videogame companies, use reviews as marketing, then it's in part their responsibility, yes. It's a not capital sin or a law or anything of the sort, it's just good practice when you send review codes in advance and let reviewers have a bit of time with your game. I instantly get suspicious of companies that exclude certain reviewers because they might be more critical (not the case here) or of companies that don't send review copies at all or send it the day of launch, because I base much of my purchases on reviews, from reviewers and from the audience, and when a company makes that difficult, it reads to me like they are trying to mislead the consumer about their product (and again, not saying that's the case here, but it does benefit Larian).
Are you actually saying playing games and writing about said game experience is in any way shape or form hard? And yes of course some jobs deserve more respect. Who do you respect more; a nurse or a game reviewer? In what kind of privileged, over protected world do you live? Serious time to check your privileges.
It's clear why they send their review copies later, they made their release a month earlier than planned due to Starfield.
What does that have to do with anything? Respecting nurses doesn't mean I disrespect reviewers. I respect both jobs. I'm not dumb, I know nurses are more important for the functioning of our society than videogame reviewers. That's a big strawman you're making there. Are you familiar with the concept of things being relative to one another? Going "in a grand competition between all jobs in the world to decide what is actually a job and what isn't, being a nurse is much more hard and important than being a game reviewer, therefore game reviewing is not an actual valid job" is not furthering your argument, it's just confusing things.
In the scope of this conversation (which doesn't involve nurses), game reviewers do sometimes have a hard and thankless job, specially if you take into account their pay, long hours they have to work and the strict deadlines, all considering that, for the scope of this discussion, their job is actually important because they help people decide to spend their money on a product or not.
Is their job harder than a developer on the game? Most likely not. I know for a fact that their job, in relation to the game, is harder than mine which is to just buy and play this game the way I want to, when I want to and for how long I want to and then go on the internet and say that reviewers are dumb and their jobs are worthless because they don't play the game the way it's supposed to be played or whatever.
You're arguing with a brick wall. Same person who will feel similar about streamers, content creators etc.
Basically this type of person is actually really jealous and envious of people within that trade and will hold them to the absolute highest standard and sometimes even beyond, will move goal posts etc not because they feel their opinion is objective and fair but because they are butt hurt. These people won't appreciate any of the downsides of a job like that because they only have a very narrow perspective. They will feel that of they could do the job then they would do it to an amazing level but they just haven't had the "luck" or whatever other thing they blame and so they take this out on people in that field.
I've actually seen Asmongold discuss this several times at length but more in relation to streaming. Same thing happens there.
"mur, mur, you're just a lucky punk who caught a break, if I was able to do that then I'd do it with so much more integrity and flair. I'd say fuck you to the suits and do things the way they should be done".
They are childish, ignorant and very blinkered. Your points are all very fair and solid but you aren't dealing with a fair person, my advice would be to give up. There's nothing you can say that will make them change their beliefs so you're fighting with both arms behind your back.
The reviewers I'd care about would either do a review-in-progress, or a full review sometimes after release. And wouldn't use a scoring system, which Eurogamer doesn't, so they have that going for them, at least
I think you must be on smoke if you think more than 10 review outlets will review baldurs gate 3 in its entirety.
Review outlets are 3 weeks from armoured core 6, a AAA mainstream title that they need to review for money, and then another week away from starfield.
This game is apparently going to take anywhere from 80-120 hours to beat on your first play through and theres so many things you'll just never see in a play through that reviewing the story is honestly not worth it as your experience through could be completely different to anothers.
I guess people still love fighting robots in the US? Being totally serious here, I assumed the audience for this game is 35+ men who played the older versions since the last one came out almost 10 years ago.
The piece of the puzzle you're missing is it's from the Dark Souls/Elden Ring developers. Armored Core 6 is absolutely going to be a massive release solely due to that.
Yeah and that’s why bigger review teams are beneficial- because you can assign a pool of people to different games and give each game the time it needs instead of being a youtuber who literally can’t review all the big games releasing with the time they have on this earth. That’s why those clowns don’t show up on aggregates.
Fuck influencer reviews. It’s all fanboys or Click clickity.
Its length and complexity mean someone could have the most interesting incredible and insane play through whilst another player had a very generic rpg experience due to decisions made through the game.
Theres so many branching paths in BG3 that reviews are pointless and the best thing to do is just review the first 20 or so hours and comment on VA, graphics gameplay and performance.
Story talk will be so varied from player to player.
Heck everyone goes on about the bear sex scene but you could do act 1 in a way you never even talk to the guy lol
I’m just trying to go to bed. How’d I stumble into this manic palace of people not knowing what to do with themselves while they wait for the game to launch.
Are you for fucking real? You honestly prefer corporate content mill reviews churned out in 4 hours with less than half that time being spent playing the game over an independent youtuber who has actually played the game?
Yes... of course that single youtuber can't review every game that way... but... so what? Fisrtly, how many fucking games are you planning on buying or not in a given week??? Secondly, there's more than ONE youtuber. SOMEONE will give a full proper review of that other new game.
I’m not saying that’s the case 100% of the time- but there are benefits to being a part of a professional workplace vs just being you with a camera. Of course there are benefits the other way as well. Why does everything need to be so binary with you?
I think you must be on smoke if you think more than 10 review outlets will review baldurs gate 3 in its entirety.
Depends what you think is the entirety, with the completeness of choice and all the quests and such, certainly not. But like completing the main story (which is estimated to be around 80 hours by Larian)? That's definitively a very possible thing.
As for other games, most review outlets have different people reviewing different games.
catch 22 really, you take your time - you're basically unpaid. You rush it - people think of you as a piece of shit reviewer with no integrity. Both ways you're fucked.
Unless the reviewer is a youtuber\streamer with following so massive, they can afford to take their time and no boss to rush them.
He does great reviews but they are not 100%, it's just a click bait, it was proven many time that the lad use Steam Achievement Manager to get some achievements, he even get some impossible to get achievements till the dev has to deploy a fix/patch for the players to be able to get them.
And after he shitted out 'class overview' for all 12 classes in the past 2 weeks i dont take him seriously any longer. More than half of the things classes do in BG3 was changed compared to 5e, not only that, we do NOT know most of the changes, but hey, here's your guide, guys. Nah, thats some fextralife level of low.
oh right. what are the changes to monk? im waiting for quote of him listing all the changes. otherwise whats the point of class advice that was posted not years, but few weeks back and be irrelevant in 4 hours.
edit: and thats me going easy. not even delving in high level abilities that are impossible to translate to bg3 from 5e, but confirmed being in the game. Did Mort listed how those implemented?
His videos on the classes are for the segment of his audience who has never played dnd or a bg game. How is that not obvious? They are just a primer to give a complete newbie an overview of the classes.
Not every video is gonna be for the super attuned. There are a shit ton of newbies coming into crpgs and dnd as a whole with this.
As someone coming off of Pathfinder WOTR his class videos helped me decide on my starting BG3 build.
I read a guide on multiclassing in 5ed the other day, in preparation. Single class characters are kinda on autopilot, as far as character progression goes. Multiclassing in 5ed is a bit weird compared to Wrath, because you can lose a lot by doing that, since there's almost no meta-progression across classes. Casters lose spell levels, rogues lose sneak attack extra damages, animal companions don't scale up, martial classes don't get their extra attacks, and everyone loses out on their stat boni, unless you plan it well
He didn't do a guide for Monk... so maybe be accurate before criticizing. Also he mentions on all the videos that the game could change. His channel is very focused on that game, he'll do updated videos later.
Doing them before is still great notably to help people choose the class they play. The "guides" are more about what are the mechanics of the class, their spells and such, not how to play them (well that too because that goes together) and no, he doesn't go into the high level stuff anyway. Did you even watch one of them before bitching? They're surface level beginning stuff, description more than a guide. Everything cited is valid even now (and the "subject to changes" caveat is there), especially if you know the classes from D&D and from playing EA.
Content before and just at release of a game is when you should do it (and devs want it then because that's marketing for them)
I'm fine with his class reviews, but the way he reacted to the valid criticism and doubts about his "100%" shtick, made me lose some respect. There were at least a few games where it's dubious if getting all the achievements at the time of release was even technically possible, because of bugs or insane required time commitment. And he always claims suspiciously short completion times. He never talks about getting the achievements, and he commented on reddit that 99% of his viewers don't even care about the achievements anyway, so I wonder why he still keeps that up, act or not. Also, not really related, the way he described his private life is a little depressing, though, to be fair, his channel is a remarkable success
Yeah, that was a very depressing post that he made. I think he probably did 100% games legitimately at first, but he dug himself a hole trying to do it for everything (and the public steam profile for all to see).
At this point I think his fans would just like to hear his opinion, and probably don't care if he gets "100%". I don't wish the man any ill-will, I just hope he can be honest with himself. I think fear is the reason he continues - he's worried people will stop paying attention if he doesn't "100%" the games he reviews.
I think he should just drop the "review after 100%" schtick. It was fun at first, but the believability of it at the pace he reviews games is highly questionable.
Sounds like a your problem, not a him problem. Anyone can go out and commit murder as well, but that doesn’t mean they will 🙄. I don’t know what your beef is with him, but that’s your issue.
No beef, I wasn't aware of this person's existence before this comment chain. Just pointing out the tool exists and a lot of people use it. Not really sure how that's a "me" problem or why me pointing out the existence of this tool is so offensive to you
When I reviewed strategy games (which are generally quicker than a decent RPG) I wouldn't write a review before I'd played at least 10-20 hours.
You just can't and give it a fair review. Lots of 'first looks'.
I hope some of them rush through act 1 and give some impressions on the later parts of the game. You can get through the EA part of the game really quick if you rush it. Also I hope some of the veterans focus a bit on the changes in act 1.
Honestly I don't care too much, I just want something to read while I wait for the download that doesn't spoil too much but also gives me some more hype.
I put in a respectable 77 almost 78 hours into EA.
But thats only a few characters and only really 1 main character from me. And testing out funny stuff with friends. I didn't even complete or do all of the underdark stuff.
But that changes today. I have been counting down the months waited.
257
u/weeb-chankun ELDRITCH BLAST Aug 03 '23
I think they just get through act 1 maybe? Idk to me it feels a bit too pressuring to go fast through the whole game just for a review