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

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

  • It should be reviewed by the potential after updates.

    Votes: 24 5.4%
  • It should be reviewed by the launch condition.

    Votes: 421 94.6%

  • Total voters
    445

litebrite

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,879
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
IGN did recently with a new Sea of Thieves review. They originally scored it a 7, now they score it a 8.

 

♡♪!?

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,933
They should take into account who is buying the game at launch and not give that benefit of the doubt to company' promises. If they improve the game later, too bad, the original review should still be the first one you get since that's what people paid for.
 
OP
OP
Caio Loco

Caio Loco

Member
Nov 6, 2017
1,546
Brasil
Given the possible increase in games for subscription systems, more and more times we will see games launched at an embryonic stage with development plans in line with the success achieved within the platform. Something similar to the series on Netflix that earn seasons according to the audience.

That said, reviews of the launch can create a negative image for subscription systems. Will the big portals and the owners of these systems not find a middle ground for this situation?
 

JudgmentJay

Member
Nov 14, 2017
1,602
Texas
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.
This. If a game is broken at launch and someone gives it a bad score they should re-visit the game, at least briefly, once it's fixed and adjust their score accordingly.
 

Hupsel

Member
Oct 28, 2017
660
LMAO some of the threads
Yeah I will launch a fighting game with 3 chars but promise to release 472 free fighters in the coming XX months (XX can be from 1 to 482729).
 

Weebos

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,460
Reviews at launch are more important for the consumer. I think updating or rereviewing a game later on makes sense, but that isn't often financially viable for reviewers as review updates don't drive much traffic.
 

Bit_Reactor

Member
Apr 9, 2019
3,382
There is no other product that is defined by its "potential."

A car isn't judged by "Yeah it doesn't have working airbags but it feels nice to drive and they could fix it later."

I feel it can be brought into the discussion, but a released product is to be judged by the condition of its release, else we excuse further shit products get released.
 
Oct 27, 2017
17,390
And? You do realize they’d be updated to reflect any changes that came well after release right?
You say they should reflect the product on release then right after say they can be updated to reflect any updates, so it seems more that you think it should reflect the most recent version

How can you not understand how unclear your post is? I don't know why you're getting bent out of shape over it. I'm just trying to understand what you mean
 

Iwao

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,637
It’s unacceptable to give games a pass for “potential”, and a slippery slope to re-review games after updates.

Both of these conditions set a bad precedent for publishers to know what they can get away with.
 

Cess007

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,860
Mexicali, Mexico
You say they should reflect the product on release then right after say they can be updated to reflect any updates, so it seems more that you think it should reflect the most recent version

How can you not understand how unclear your post is? I don't know why you're getting bent out of shape over it. I'm just trying to understand what you mean
I don't know what you find so unclear about the post. It's almost exactly the same of what many others have expressed here.
 

Ruisu

Member
Aug 1, 2019
225
The problem with not considering potential is that for people who buy the game later, it can be extremely misleading if all they find on the internet is material about the launch state, and the game can be really different later but you won't know since most of the review material and discussion only comes out at launch.

Updating the review is ideal, but I find it to be really really rare.
 

julian

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,315
There is no guarantee they will deliver on those patches. Makes no sense to award points for promises.
 

NinjaScooter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
25,712
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
it’s probably a waste of time. By the time a game is out and has been played, peoples minds are made up. People know whether they want to try it or not. This is why so many outlets rush to have day 0 or 1 reviews, because realistically that’s the only time it matters. Beyond that a vast majority of the audience doesn’t give a single, solitary fuck. Game reviewing isn’t some noble effort. You are asking an outlet or publication to allocate resources that will only appeal to a fraction of their audience. It just doesn’t make sense. I’m glad we are at a stage where games can be patched and updated to make the experience better, but in no way should critics be obligated to continually update their impressions of the game accordingly. Thats just dumb.
 

calibos

Member
Dec 13, 2017
202
Review whats available. Then, if something major happens like in MS Studios case where they have received massive influxes of cash and have updated and overhauled their games(Sea of Thieves and State of Decay) they could be re-reviewed.
 

Kinsei

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
12,538
Launch state. Patches are never a guarantee and reviewers can always go back a rereview something if it gets substantial improvements.
 

laxu

Member
Nov 26, 2017
1,384
Launch condition and then maybe months later a recap on if there have been any significant fixes. I would also like a recap if there haven't been any fixes. Is for example Nier Automata still relying on 3rd party patches on PC to fix issues?

Developers and publishers deserve shit thrown at them if they release a game as buggy as say RDR2 was on PC launch. The game works alright now but that is not an acceptable way to go for one of the largest game companies.
 

monmagman

Member
Dec 6, 2018
2,778
England,UK
Potential,lol......no.
Re-review it by all means at a later date but who knows if any potential will be fullfilled.
Has Anthems potential been fulfilled...Destiny?
This is nonsense.
 

MP!

Member
Oct 30, 2017
3,700
Las Vegas
they should be scarred for life on their initial review... and then later reviews can update you on the current situation of the game... but you will always remember how terrible a game was at launch ... those wounds may heal but the scars will haunt you... and the review score
 

Gamer @ Heart

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,181
Reviewing potential is absolutely absurd. Anthem had a ton of potential and the man power to course correct. Bioware and EA choose to spend a year just makeing it playable and nothing more. Not even the biggest developers deserve that level of leway
 

FallenHeroX1

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,891
Reviewing for potential? Wtf? Are these reviewers fortune tellers as well? I'm all for releasing a new review for a game that has been updated, but reviewing based on how good it could be? That's fucked and a terrible idea all around. Might as well start handing out 10s because every game could be perfect someday maybe.
 

MrCibb

Member
Dec 12, 2018
1,358
UK
Neither. It should be reviewed on what's there, but this can be updated in the future if there's some notable changes and the outlet believes it deserves a second look. Stuff like No Man's Sky and Sea of Thieves. Way better games now than they were at launch and I believe both have been re-reviewed by various outlets, but at launch they didn't deserve anything more than what they got.
 

robotzombie

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,061
What is with people posting topics lately with an outlandish question where the obviously stupid answer is blown out of the water in the included poll? This is like the 4th or 5th time I've seen this situation in the last week...
 

Espi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,840
How do you review based on potential? In that case most games should get a 10, as everything can just be patched to theoretically make it perfect.
 

Pyro

Member
Jul 30, 2018
4,038
United States
I think they should review it within the confines of what the game is at launch. Reviewing “potential” is ludicrous.

Even if it was a matter of reviewing patches/fixes, instead of just the huge updates, not every site can afford that coverage.
 

HueyFreeman

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,280
I understand where you're coming from OP but any potential communication about improvements compared to launch is on the publisher. The vast majority of sales are going to be front-loaded so that's the product people are going to be paying for.

Pubs should market a re-launch if they want it re-reviewed.
 
OP
OP
Caio Loco

Caio Loco

Member
Nov 6, 2017
1,546
Brasil
I understand where you're coming from OP but any potential communication about improvements compared to launch is on the publisher. The vast majority of sales are going to be front-loaded so that's the product people are going to be paying for.

Pubs should market a re-launch if they want it re-reviewed.
You have in mind something like Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn?
 

Faenix1

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,680
Canada
Games need to be reviewed as they are, not how they MIGHT be down the road

Amend the review later when updates land.
 

ShinUltramanJ

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,819
You say they should reflect the product on release then right after say they can be updated to reflect any updates, so it seems more that you think it should reflect the most recent version

How can you not understand how unclear your post is? I don't know why you're getting bent out of shape over it. I'm just trying to understand what you mean
Sorry if I’m coming across as confusing or sound like I’m getting irritated.

Updated reviews would take place well after a release, assuming big changes took place that made it worth revisiting.

On a side note this is why user reviews matter. Players will tell you if a game has changed for the better or worse. Gaming sites rarely ever do.
 

hikarutilmitt

Member
Dec 16, 2017
4,004
Whynotboth.gif

Give an initial review, then go back and do a re-review after any major updates. Keep the original review there, though. We kind of get this now, anyway, when something like, say, NMS gets a massive update that changes things.
 

Uzume

Member
Oct 30, 2017
106
Updated score should only apply to games provided with meaningful new content after release.
 
Oct 30, 2017
4,853
Launch condition.


It is 100% impossible to review based on potential when that potential may not even ever be realized. The only merit that matters is “how is this game NOW” not “how will this be in 9 months.”