Should games be reviewed for their launch condition or potential after updates and corrections?

[iamandy]

We recently had the launch of Bleeding Edge and together with this launch, the analysis by the major game portals. While none of this escapes the normality of things, one point caught my attention (and from other users as well): some sites added points to their scores due to the potential for future updates that the game may receive.

My question for Era: is it correct that form of review that we are seeing emerging in which some defects are revealed because they are potentially correctable? Or should the reviews follow the traditional pattern and evaluate the game for what it is at launch?

 

[Uzzy]

The game is a product available today. It should be reviewed on what is available today.

If major updates come out later then I've no issue with a re-review, or updated review.

 

[DominicanGlory]

This shouldn't even be a question. What I do like is how IGN for example updates their scores over time for these GAAS games.

 

[Deleted member 5028]

The game is a product available today. It should be reviewed on what is available today.

If major updates come out later then I've no issue with a re-review, or updated review.

Click to shrink...

This is the best answer.

 

[Last_colossi]

It should be reviewed based on the day one patch if there is one.

 

[vestan]

The game is a product available today. It should be reviewed on what is available today.

If major updates come out later then I've no issue with a re-review, or updated review.

Click to shrink...

Pretty much this. Rocket League got solid reviews back in 2015 with an 8 from IGN but was given a re-review by some outlets after nearly three years since release and was bumped up to a 9.3 by IGN.

The nature of these GaaS games constantly changing over time means something like a re-review is fair game but they absolutely should be judged and reviewed on launch.

Also...lmao...

 

[Nugnip]

"This game sucks but in my mind it could be great! 10/10"

 

[Chaystic]

The game is a product available today. It should be reviewed on what is available today.

If major updates come out later then I've no issue with a re-review, or updated review.

Click to shrink...

What I came to say.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Some games get updated for years, they add and take away features, how long do you want reviewers to wait exactly? Or how many times are they suppose to review the same game?

 

[modiz]

There is a reason why the disc version is called the gold version, because it should properly function from the disc and that is what the game should be reviewed as.

 

[dancingphlower]

It should be judged on the product that the consumer can pay money for.

 

[Odeko]

For practicality reasons alone it should be reviewed on its launch condition.

There's already so many games coming out that no outlet can get all of them, they can't then also be obligated to revisit the same title over and over to write increasingly more niche reviews for the people who still care about Fallout 76 and all the changes it's undergone.

 

[Platy]

...potential?

You mean like speculation?
So Mario Party should have received reviews based on the idea that it was obvious it would receive dlc for example?

 

[Hyun Sai]

Only if it's Free to play I could see judging the potential. If I have to pay, launch condition it is.

 

[Faces of Death]

The game is a product available today. It should be reviewed on what is available today.

If major updates come out later then I've no issue with a re-review, or updated review.

Click to shrink...

This.

My favorite game this generation is Rainbow Six Siege - and even though I've loved it from the start - it had launch issues...and it was reviewed for how it was at the time. Since launch the game has seen huge updates every few months and some places have re-reviewed it.

 

[DigSCCP]

Reviews should be about the product released and not it´s potential in the future with patches and post content.
Re review, do an article if you think it´s worth visiting the title after the posible updates but don´t make a review thinking about how great a product could be when, and if, devs support it later.

 

[Kurita]

Launch condition, + articles/updates if the game gets improvements

 

[ShinUltramanJ]

The review should be for the product customers are paying for day one.

Not what they might have later. Reviews can always be updated.

 

[cowbanana]

Definitely launch condition, review what is shipped on disc.

I absolutely hate the "ship broken, fix later" mentality of a large part of the games industry. This year has already seen its fair share of broken games released to paying consumers. Yikes!!!!1111! @ those who ship broken games.

 

[FormatCompatible]

Launch conditions, SPECIALLY if a game is asking for money upfront.

 

[s2398jgi2jf]

however the person writing the review wants to fly

 

[Raijinto]

Reviewing games around their launch window is fine. A line has to be drawn at some point, and particularly for big sites like IGN and Eurogamer it is perfectly reasonable to not expect them to re-review games except in exceptional circumstances. Like Animal Crossing New Leaf got a big and free update something like 3/4 years after its launch, and it revolved around a product line that didn't exist at launch. If they wanted to do another review then great but it's unrealistic to expect one IMO.

 

[Jorden1506]

It should be reviewed based on the day one patch if there is one.

Click to shrink...

This is hard to do as companies have their embargos set on a moment mostly before that patch goes live. Reviewing it with a note that the day one patch is not yet applied is better. As replaying the game to see what is fixed is a waste of time

 

[Death Penalty]

The game is a product available today. It should be reviewed on what is available today.

If major updates come out later then I've no issue with a re-review, or updated review.

Click to shrink...

Yep, this is the best of both worlds. Warns readers/viewers about the current state of the game but leaves plenty of room for updates to change things.

 

[MickZan]

In my opinion games should even be reviewed based on the state before the day one patch. I know tons of people with no access to internet on their console. They at least deserve a warning in reviews that a game runs like shit unless patched.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Review the version that's sold.

If there are great changes or updates, see No Man's Sky, reviewers should be able to do a re-review.

 

[ZanderEzekial]

The four people that voted yes need help.

 

[Last_colossi]

This is hard to do as companies have their embargos set on a moment mostly before that patch goes live. Reviewing it with a note that the day one patch is not yet applied is better. As replaying the game to see what is fixed is a waste of time

Click to shrink...

Yeah that's ok as well, personally I'd be fine with waiting a couple days after release for reviews but I get that journalists are constantly competing for who gets first dibs so it wouldn't really work.

 

[Pachinko]

If they're knowingly launching as GAAS titles , that potential for growth can be verified months after launch. The state of the game day 1 is what matters day 1 for new owners so that's what should be looked at. Down the road IF the title received updates and improved much , it should be noted. Maybe not as a separate review (unless there's a new SKU) but with something like "checking in with season 2 of Blank". If you give a game a higher score for stuff that doesn't exist yet , you're helping no one. Also even titles that do expand need to be compared to what's available , sometimes it's to their benefit , other times not so much.

 

[iamandy]

Review the version that's sold.

If there are great changes or updates, see No Man's Sky, reviewers should be able to do a re-review.

Click to shrink...

Maybe the sites won't have time to re-review all those games.

 

[DontHateTheBacon]

It seems almost impossible to review the potential of a game, because it doesn't actually exist.

 

[Sean Mirrsen]

Games, when being reviewed, should be given scores based on what the game is at the time of the review.

If something changes significantly, and the publisher thinks that the review scores could be amended, they could ask the press to update their reviews.
Steam does it for players, asking whether you'd like to revisit your negative review if you've continued playing. Can't see why it couldn't be done from the publisher's side as well.

 

[eXistor]

Predominantly online games should never get a set score, just a generic "recommended" etc. rating. They don't operate like normal games should be rated accordingly.

Single player games should absolutely be rated by number and it should be done based on the state it is being released.

 

[Slayven]

On what is released, BUT i am shocked no one made a serious go at rereviewing games years down the road or after major changes. That could be a nice line for someone with some talent

 

[zombiejames]

You can't review potential because you can never predict if developers will go through with it or not.

 

[Arkhanor]

It should be reviewed at launch and then, a re-review should be made after the "big update that fixes everything".

 

[808s & Villainy]

The review should be for the product customers are paying for day one.

Not what they might have later. Reviews can always be updated.

Click to shrink...

...so which is it?

 

[Deleted member 8752]

I think a launch review plus a brand new review when there is enough content to warrant it is appropriate. You can link to the new review at the bottom of the launch review and vice-versa in case people are curious.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Maybe the sites won't have time to re-review all those games.

Click to shrink...

Thus "should be able". It's not supposed to be mandatory for every game.
The only thing that has to be is the review of the copy the costumer is able to buy day one.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

I'd be curious if "updated" reviews actually get much/enough traffic. Seems to me you're better off reviewing the launch product, because that's when most people will seek out and read reviews.

You might mention "X updates are planned", but you can't review content that isn't in the game yet, so it shouldn't have bearing on a score (though really, I prefer as no-score as possible for reviews).

 

[Rhaknar]

realistically both, but aint nobody got time for that, so I guess launch.

 

[Crossing Eden]

If a game has had significant updates over a period of time then reviewing that product to inform consumers is definitely a valid option.

 

[HockeyBird]

Based on what the reviewer has at the moment. It's unreasonable for a reviewer to try predict or hold off for a patch.

 

[Deleted member 135]

The launch condition of course. If a game is a 6.8 at launch that's the way the game is for the vast majority of people. You shouldn't (and we shouldn't encourage) buying bad games at launch on the hope they'll get better later.

 

[Ridill]

Why not a fluid eating system? Launch gets it's review, and if there are any significant changes/updates that improve or make the game suffer down the line, the the score. All while including dates where changes went to effect. The problem is that most reviewers are probably too busy with other NEW games out at the time, to offer an updated view on the game.

 

[Kittens McMittens]

Games should be reviewed in whatever state the reviewer finds it in according to whatever criteria the reviewer desires.

 

[steejee]

Count me in for 'Review as is, re-review if appropriate'

 

[Dever]

Reviewing something for "potential" sounds really weird... However, some games should probably be re-reviewed after significant updates.

 

[ShinUltramanJ]

...so which is it?

Click to shrink...

The product the customer receives day one. It's the first sentence of my post.

 

[Strangelove_77]

5 people voted for potential. Wow.