2303: Review in Progress

I’ve noticed a lot of gaming sites posting “review in progress” articles for new releases recently. And while there is a time and a place for this sort of thing — most notably in the case of massively multiplayer online games, or multiplayer-centric titles that are dependent on their communities — I don’t think it’s a particularly appropriate way to handle single-player games.

The idea of a “review in progress” is for the author of the article to post their thoughts and opinions about the game as they’re playing it, updating it over time before coming to a final judgement and a score, assuming the publication in question does scores. This does kind of make sense in a way, because some games are slow burners that take a while to learn, and it can be interesting to see how someone’s reactions and feelings change over time. But at the same time, I find myself asking why the author didn’t just hold fire until they’d beaten the whole thing, then talk about their complete “journey” all in one go. That makes for an interesting structure for an article; in the case of games with strong emergent narratives but challenging mechanics — something like a Paradox strategy game, for example — it can even provide the basis for a compelling “story” of how the reviewer learned how to manage their empire more effectively after their incompetent beginnings.

The reason why “reviews in progress” exist should be obvious by now, though: they’re there to hoover up some of those sweet, sweet clicks from people Googling, say, “valkyria chronicles remastered review” or “overwatch review” or whatever else the latest hotness might be. Because the word “review” is in there, these half-finished articles show up in search results (assuming the tech guys at the sites in question have done their SEO homework) when what people are really looking for is detailed, authoritative, helpful and knowledgeable information on games they’re interested in. It’s one of many examples we have today of the inner machinations of the press being self-serving rather than in service of their readership.

More than that, though, as someone who’s floated in and out of the games press since he was a teenager, I find the idea of a “review in progress” somewhat objectionable on another level. When I took on my first ever writing assignments, I did so on the understanding that you should finish the game you’re writing about before putting pen to paper in order to be able to give a complete, in-depth appraisal of everything it had to offer. Granted, this was in the magazine age, when publications had rather more time to assemble their articles, and also in an age where there weren’t nearly as many games released every week as there are today — not to mention an age where 100-hour games were pretty much unheard of — but still, I think it’s a good goal to aspire to.

If you’re a professional critic, regardless of what you think the “purpose” of game reviews are, people are going to come to you on the assumption that you know what you are talking about, and that your articles will be well-researched, informative and helpful for making a purchase decision, or simply to find out more about a game. If you’re not doing your job properly — in other words, if you’re posting garbage like this or this, to give two extreme examples — then you shouldn’t be at all surprised when you become the object of ridicule that the average modern games journalist is today.

In other words, the games press would be a whole lot better — and more helpful to its readers — if it stopped worrying about churning out articles to release dead on embargo time, and instead only post pieces when the author in question actually has a full, complete and knowledgeable understanding of the thing they are commenting on.

Sadly, I don’t see this happening any time soon.