I made a big mistake today...

if its a rpg or anything that's storie driven than you have to at least finish it once, that way you can aces the complete game and not just apart of it, especially first 30 minutes, in most rpgs first 30 minutes doesn't say anything about a game, usually for a first couple of hours you cant be sure what kind of a game it is, for those games its just a begging, for a fps you should try it for at least couple of hours or until you know its pace, its weapon and enemy types and start to notice the patterns, in that moment you know something about the game and can say if you like it or not and why, but still it not truly a review because there's a chance it all goes down from there, maps start to look like one another, there are no new weapons or enemies and you basically have a game that plays great for an couple of hours and than starts to recycle its self. in 26 minutes you probably didn't see 10% of the game and it can still surprise enough that it becomes your favorite game or your worst purchase ever.

If you ask me anything where they are discussing their opinion of a game is a review. I can understand it might not be a completely in depth review but those people are just getting buttmad over semantics.

"review" is really a toss-up these days man. People like "WTF is..." play the first 10 or so minutes of a game to show people what it's like hands down, while people like Cricken, Bro Team and Yahtzee have a more comical perspective of the game review style, with almost a disregard for the traditional review in a sense. Then you have people like TheBestGamersUSA who just burp and fart into the microphone and then laugh about it while showing you commercials for CoD.

It's impossible to say "this isn't a proper game review" these days.

Says the admin for broteampill. Silly me.

(From the comments i deduced that the aforementioned video is TB's Wtf is..., if it's not, my comment can be invalid.)

There are two things that distinguish his videos from reviews. The first is, that the games he plays are neither looked from a perspective nor a grander scale. He literally just start the game for the first time, plays some tutorial levels, and then starts recording: the series point is to show people the first stages of the game, tell them about the mechanics of it and what he thinks of it. His opinion may change multiple times during the recording, as he proceeds in the game ["This part is pretty cool! So far the game looks great! (...) Well, this is getting pretty boring. (...) Just when i thought there's nothing much to the game, it suddenly..." etc.], and review has to be one-noted through the entire thing. A reviewer can't suddenly change his mind in the middle of the review - and that's the "perspective" part.
Now, the "grand scale" part. A review can't be made by looking on only one part, but a game as a whole. As they say, you can't judge a book by it's cover, and if you haven't seen enough of the game to be sure you know what's the game is about, you can't review it - i'll even give you a cool example! Do you know the game Shogun 2? You can beat your first battles by just standing in a spot and waiting for your enemy to attack you, and if your army is bigger than his, you'll win most of the times. The battles are getting more strategic, when your and your opponents army are rather big, full of more advanced units. Now, a person who sees only those first battles (or just an early game economy that differs quite a lot from the mid- and late game economy) is unable to review it and even if the person calls the thing he made a "review", it's NOT a review. TB in his WTF is... was only an hour and a half into the game, and he even specifically stated, that he don't know how stealthy the game is on later levels, or if the killcams gets boring when the novelty fades.

The second thing is, TB specifically stated on many occasions, that his Wtf is...'s aren't and shouldn't be considered reviews, but his first impressions. And that should be enough.

To review Skyrim, I'd say you must have finished the "story", just like any other game.

About demo length, preferably twice as much, for an average AAA game, i'd say 3-4 hours.

Edit: Try and understand the other modes/unlocks before writing a review, though.

whats your youtube channel?

a review IS just an analysis of a part of the game... unless u say you review whole games tell them to shove it up their a**. for instance zero punctuation does full reviews on the "bad" sides of games and nothing more. also totalbiscuit (or totalhalibut) does "wtf is" which is about first impressions... its still a review but of certain parts and people who cant appreciate a review for what it shows instead of what it doesn't are stupid... (btw i generally don't like reviews as they are from that person's perspective... not the viewers so audiences shouldn't be relying on them anyway...)

IF around 30 minutes of gameplay is enough to make a review (and by that I mean "hey there, time to talk about GAME, let's sit down, unpack disc, start new game and let's see what will happen", not "I played it for last 2 days, and now I'll give my thoughts about it while showing gameplay instead of my boring face"), I guess you can judge a book by its cover...

A review is you personal opinion you are free to do it the way you want. If people don't like it it's their right too, and they can express it as long as they are not being offensive while doing so. When they do get offensive keep in mind it's the internet and don't let them get to you. +1 to your karma pool for making a review btw. =)

On Backloggery, there are two "finished" statuses for games -- "Beaten" and "Completed".
I like their definitions of both, and consider that a review should have "Beaten" the game, whilst I don't expect a reviewer to have "Completed" a game, and definitely not "Mastered". Sometimes, a review doesn't finish the game at all, but in every case, a reputable reviewer should declare that loudly and clearly, and also the "why" -- the reason they didn't finish.
imho.

I agree with you, Taerdin. However, it would be okay to say up to which point have you gotten. "This game, in my opinion, is yaddayaddayadda, however, I did not get to experience thisandthat yet, so my view on the game may change, but up to this point, it's as I have stated" :3
But yes, it's still a review.

skyrim sucks, my review.

A review is a review, it is always something subjective.
Nevertheless, there are certain requirements one has to fulfill in order to call it one.
The story imo is a secondary aspect of a review, whereas the technical sector and gameplay of a certain game are more important. However, this is just me and other gamers may take the story as a primary criterion for a game.
Hope it helped ;)

What i remember from school a review should have a beginning, amplification and conclusion.

In a beginning you present the thing, where it came from, what's you are going to talk about etc.
In a amplification you talk about content, plot, curious details etc.
In a conlusion you sum up, give a score, and say your own opinion about it, is it worth or not worth etc.

That was brief and i might be totally wrong :P

Anyways a review is a personal matter, you show your own view on something based on likes, experiences, trends, technology, whatever makes you like or dislike in current moment something. But a reviewer needs to thorough, do you imagine writing a review after watching half of the movie or reading half of the book? :) You can't write a good review based on a first impression - that's i think the main mistake people do nowadays. They make a review 5 min after finishing the game, being still under the emotions and not thinking entirely clearly. I also agree with Azuranski "a reviewer can't suddenly change his mind in the middle of the review" - its just not a review anymore. I like to watch first look on a game, where someone just opened a game for the first time and is playing it "with me", it's fun to watch and it gives some informations, but it's not a review. When it comes to games, a good reviewer doesn't need to see every last bit of a game but needs to see most of it - like 90% of it :)) I got high standards, but that is what i expect from a proper reviewer. If someone is thorough i know he knows what he's talking about. I know these are not guesses or expectations from a game but facts and actuall experiences. I also think that a score is needed in one way or another, simply by saying its good/not good or giving a note 5, 10, whatever. Scores are also fun for receivers, because they can hate someone for instance for giving a higher note to Oblivion than to Skyrim :P

a huge little mistake?

I'd say it depends on the game. If the game is a heavy story-based game (Heavy Rain, perhaps Mass Effect) then yeah, one needs to play the entire game. Exceptions could be made if the gameplay is so horrible people are unable to finish the game out of boredom, bugs preventing completion, and things like that.

If the game is something like Frozen Synapse or Dark Souls, then no, the entire game doesn't need to be played as in that case it is mainly the gameplay, level design, maybe music that one is going to look at and for the most part you can get a feel for those rather quickly. Though even then there should be some disclaimer like "I only played X hours and got X way through, there may be some huge change after that point that makes the game shit." though for the most part I doubt something like that would happen. I think Serious Sam 3 has a level near the end that is really bad because you run directly into the sun, so that could be an example of level design getting worse near the end of the game. Overall level design would probably be a better way to look at it though as that is more likely to change. Take Dark Souls, (spoiler?) if you review it after Smough and Ornstein you can't comment specifically on level design of the future levels, but you could look at the over all design and conclude that there will still be hidden paths and items and that it wont suddenly get colorful and put you in candyland or whatever and most likely you'll be correct each time, though there may be specific things about levels that are bad, like the lava level that had a lot of complaints. Now, if someone has played through the entire game then that would mean they could write a better review than they otherwise would.

Pretty much I agree with you when you say: "I mean assume the game has no real plot or character development, it's just levels where you shoot guys and it's awesome. You might unlock some new weapons as you play, see some new enemies, go to some new locations, but the gameplay remains largely the same. In effect, the first hour or so you play, you actually know just about all the game has to offer, don't you?"

Games that do not revolve around story do not need to be played all the way through to be reviewed well, though that would make a review better than it otherwise would be.

Hopefully this makes sense.

You NEED to play a significant proportion of the game. If it was Skyrim (as per your example) you should at least play it twice (with different character builds), meaning you will have gone through the whole main quest at least once in full and several (preferably most) of its side quests when adding both playthroughs. Many of those sidequests should be experienced with the second character build.

This is just one of my main gripes with modern game reviews they are hastily written, and 8 out of 10 times, this means the reviewer hasn't really experienced the game as a whole, but rather got a taste of it and moved on.

Everyone can make a review, its just play a little bit of the game, exposing your first impressions of the game, some points like, the Music , GamePlay , General View, Graphics (if is needed), Its just like playing a DEMO. Little demonstration of the game.

Yes, you do have to play the entire game before coming out with a review. You don't have to express the absolute entirety of it on the review itself but you must point out every remarkable and bad thing about it which can include bits of the storytelling and game mechanics throughout the whole thing, the game turning stale after a while can be considered a negative aspect and is worth mentioning in a review. Not playing every bit of the title and pumping out a review or a score (good or bad) for it can be considered fraudulent, specially when you're just plain comparing it to other titles (unless, of course, this includes concept stealing) and talking about things such as pricing and gamer appeal.

The scoring system for reviews are basically ways of summarizing reviews by using a number. The bigger the number, the higher the quality of the product perceived by the reviewer. The overall quality of video game titles is based off the Graphics, the Sound and the Gameplay. Giving each one of these factors a "score" based off presentation and calculating the average between the three is a way to give a general thought of how well they were put up. Scores are mostly a way to summarize your entire review so the ADHD guys get a general idea of how well the product is without having to analyze every bit of your words. Keep in mind scores should never be vital aspects of your review as a whole, as they're only a complement to the main thing.