IGN did recently with a new Sea of Thieves review. They originally scored it a 7, now they score it a 8.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Should games be reviewed for their launch condition or potential after updates and corrections?
- Thread starter iamandy
- Start date
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.
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?
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?
And then you say they can be updated. If they're updated then they're not based on the day one product
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.
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).
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).
And? You do realize they'd be updated to reflect any changes that came well after release right?
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.
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.
Can I ask which sites did this? Because scoring something that doesn't exist is very weird
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.
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.
Updating the review is ideal, but I find it to be really really rare.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
User Banned (1 day): personal attacks
Proven is surely one of them
(Sorry I failed to find how to embeded ERA post)
https://www.resetera.com/threads/bleeding-edge-review-thread.176980/post-30214565
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.
I actually didn't vote in this thread because I didn't even know it existed. Did you really tag me because of something I said in another thread ? Do you think I "need help"??
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.
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...
And when the games are part of a subscription plan? You're not paying for then directly.
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.
Even if it was a matter of reviewing patches/fixes, instead of just the huge updates, not every site can afford that coverage.
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.
Pubs should market a re-launch if they want it re-reviewed.
You have in mind something like Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn?
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.
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.
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.
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."
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."