Crispy Gamer

Giving up: should reviewers suffer through bad games?


I had an interesting conversation with a colleague (who I won't mention out of respect) this evening about game reviews and how much a reviewer has to play what they perceive as a bad game before they throw in the towel and write a review. To my way of thinking you should try, to the best of your ability, to play that game as far as you can, barring a show stopping bug or design flaw that prevents you from continuing.

So if a game is awful, are reviewers allowed to say at some point "hey I wouldn't play this game anymore than I have to and you shouldn't either" or should they do the heavy lifting and play it to the end? My thought on doing that is that it is wrong and it makes it difficult for an editor to know whether that person was truly playing an awful game or was just being lazy.

As much as I loathe playing crappy games, I take the responsibility of reviewing any game very seriously. After all, times are hard right now and wasting your money on anything sucks, let alone on some middling, crappy piece of software. On the other hand, there are men and women that pour their hearts and souls into developing these games and we have an obligation to  give them a fair and honest critique of their work.

I know where I stand, but what do you think as a fellow reviewer or as a consumer?

Image Credit: