how much time do you put into a game before reviewing it?

[Jxt09]

I've seen reviews with 0.4 hours time and have read scornful comments about that. So I try to put a lot of time into a game before reviewing. However sometimes I think I should just go ahead and review even if I have a low time because I've played enough of the game (usually minimalist puzzle games) to review it thoroughly. But I usually don't because I'm scared of people dismissing my review as not relevant because of low play time.

What do you think? If you play puzzle games like I do, how much time is enough to do a review?

My apologies if this has been asked before. I do not usually follow this forum.

[sdumitriu]

Almost all the time I review games after I finish them, unless it is truly unbearable or it's an endless one.

[joan4003]

Generally, I finish the game before I review it. However, some games I have reviewed after I have finished PART 1 or somewhere in the "middle", generally around 6-8 hours of game play. I do not pay attention to any review that has less than several hours of playtime. Basically if someone did not play the game how can there be an informed opinion. I have done some reviews on Steam with very low game time but these reviews are done after playing the game on another platform, which I state in the review.

[Jxt09]

I too do not give much credence to reviews with low play time. My concern with game play time is with puzzle games that do not take hours and hours like other types of games. Say a game like Zup. It doesn't take long to get the idea of the game but if I get stuck and I want to stick to the ideal of only reviewing once completing a game then I might never review the game. I was just wondering if I should relax my standards on puzzle games because halfway through they could get really difficult and unless I look at a guide, which I consider cheating, then I might never finish the game.

[OctoberFox]

I get where you are coming from, and believe that a "satisfactory" experience, for or against, is fair after you've decided whether or not you enjoy the game, but this will obviously come down to what you are comfortable with.

In your example, for example, puzzle games may not require completion to know whether or not they're worth your yea or nay. I reviewed PAC-MAN 256 long before I completed it, as well as Jack Lumber, Bad Hotel, and others. In these cases, I knew before completing them whether or not they were good or bad. I despised Jack Lumber early, and Bad Hotel was... bad. Didn't take 30 hours to figure that out. PAC-MAN 256, however, felt polished, smart, and worthy of a thumbs up.

To answer your initial question, my own standard is to complete the game at least once, both to experience it and confirm that it's not broken. If it is an arcade style puzzle without goals, like Tetris, maybe a little time with, a break, and more time with again to come at it with a fresh mind more than once is helpful. If there are achievements, I try going for at least a minimum 30-50%, as they feel like a good gauge for understanding what the developers intended, and seeing what I may have overlooked when playing on my own terms.

[Jxt09]

Originally posted by OctoberFox:

I get where you are coming from, and believe that a "satisfactory" experience, for or against, is fair after you've decided whether or not you enjoy the game, but this will obviously come down to what you are comfortable with.

In your example, for example, puzzle games may not require completion to know whether or not they're worth your yea or nay. I reviewed PAC-MAN 256 long before I completed it, as well as Jack Lumber, Bad Hotel, and others. In these cases, I knew before completing them whether or not they were good or bad. I despised Jack Lumber early, and Bad Hotel was... bad. Didn't take 30 hours to figure that out. PAC-MAN 256, however, felt polished, smart, and worthy of a thumbs up.

To answer your initial question, my own standard is to complete the game at least once, both to experience it and confirm that it's not broken. If it is an arcade style puzzle without goals, like Tetris, maybe a little time with, a break, and more time with again to come at it with a fresh mind more than once is helpful. If there are achievements, I try going for at least a minimum 30-50%, as they feel like a good gauge for understanding what the developers intended, and seeing what I may have overlooked when playing on my own terms.

Thank you, that is helpful.

[CBlade]

If it's a negative review then I might not have finished the game
Other than that I play games through to the end and then review it

[Atratzu]

I don't think game time is necessarily a good measuring tool for review writing.

For big open world games I'll need to make notes at the start of the game, then notes after finishing the story, and notes after I'm done playing. (or else i"ll end up like I did with Monster Hunter Rise or Baldur's Gate 3, where I was like "dear god where do I start with this review?")

But currently I'm working on a Grand Strategy game called STAR WARS Rebellion, and it's taking as long as most big budget games to beat. I'm deadlocked in a fight with the Empire and don't see myself winning any time soon. In these cases I think of my reviews as one part video game feedback/critique and two part "let me tell you a story about playing through this game".

But it really depends on the game, I played a game called 100 Hidden Cats, and beat it in less then an hour. What can I say about that? "Uhhh... Yep, I found them all."

So ultimately I think the review and format you choose will heavily depend on what you're trying to tell in your review? Are you purely providing critique of your experience? Are you contrasting the game to others similar in the genre? Are you super casual and just like "Hey! This is what I think about this game".

[Jxt09]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, @Atratzu. Yes I see how it depends on what kind of game it is. Good examples. And I play a lot of those 'finding' games like the cat ones and even found more to say than just "Yep, I found them all".

[Jxt09]

Oh, and about time. Sometimes I hear grumbling from people that some reviewer only spent less than an hour on a game before reviewing it and tsk, tsk, tsk, for shame! But sometimes I think that time is not as important, as you mentioned in the cat finding games. There's a series of solitaire games that have always been excellent from this one dev. I feel like, when a new game comes out, that I should review it as soon as I can so I can let other people know about it. But I worry that someone will look at my time and say "only 3 hours of game time? forsooth and whatever". That's kind of why I made the post to begin with.

Part of me wants to wait until I complete the game so I can say in my review that it takes "x" amount of hours to complete. But it could take me a year to complete the game because there are a ton of levels plus bonus games to play if you want all the achievements, and I only play a few games a day, I don't grind. For instance, I still haven't completed last year's Christmas/Winter themed game and the dev just announced a new one will be released soon. Sigh. Oh, and I always buy upon release (if discounted which it always is) to support the devs.