-
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
I say do a launch review and if the game has received significant updates since then a re-review would be appropriate.
A good example would be Battlefront II, that game has been improved a lot since launch and it's probably one of the better Star Wars games out there.
A good example would be Battlefront II, that game has been improved a lot since launch and it's probably one of the better Star Wars games out there.
If they are charging full price for a game at launch then they have to be judged on that. That is when most people bu so that is what must be looked at.
Games should be reviewed if possible based on the day 1 patch. If not possible then whatever was provided. A game review is simply telling a story of your experience with the game at that moment in time. If you want to know how a game is 6 months some places re-review updates or visit forums and see how much things have improved.
A review based on the expectations of what a developer may do in the future makes no sense. At that point you are no longer describing the story of your experience with the game at that moment in time. You are now predicting the future based on what you think might happen. I don't really want to read a review that is filled with pure speculation.
A review based on the expectations of what a developer may do in the future makes no sense. At that point you are no longer describing the story of your experience with the game at that moment in time. You are now predicting the future based on what you think might happen. I don't really want to read a review that is filled with pure speculation.
Review at release then review again if there are substantial changes. Seems fair to everyone. I know it's a lot of work for reviewers and some will simply refuse to do so but seems like the best solution. Though how does that effect metacritic etc...
Absolutely has to be reviewed by its launch state, there's really no way to get around that. Games can be re-reviewed later though, I doubt many people would have a problem with that. No reason to give examples where potential exists though.
I knew from the thread title which game was the impetus for the thread lol
I knew from the thread title which game was the impetus for the thread lol
I like review videos on release day for the comments and impressions. I find scores and meta scores completely useless though. Some games are bad at launch and great later but the publisher kinda deserves to watch the game underperform and get bad word of mouth because they pushed it out early. But meta scores are totally worthless.
Let's be honest. Technical foibles, and history, let us know edit: (if/when) they will get smoothed out. You have all played games, you know what things have a good chance of being fixed and what doesnt.
Ori2 stuttering. Annoying, yes. But I wouldn't take score off for it, as it is clearly something that can and will get patched. (but, talk about it for sure - then the reader can judge if they want it now or later)
Broken or boring gameplay (Like, Re-Core), hell yeah mark it low. But it would be nice to have a blurb and updated score if by some miracle they fix stuff (like, the surprise amount of work that went into re-core, out of nowhere)
Ori2 stuttering. Annoying, yes. But I wouldn't take score off for it, as it is clearly something that can and will get patched. (but, talk about it for sure - then the reader can judge if they want it now or later)
Broken or boring gameplay (Like, Re-Core), hell yeah mark it low. But it would be nice to have a blurb and updated score if by some miracle they fix stuff (like, the surprise amount of work that went into re-core, out of nowhere)
Re-review it if you want to, but the review must reflect the experience the reviewer actually had rather than some imagined ideal state for the game. Some games never get the patches they need to deliver on their potential (Xcom 2 War of the Chosen, I'm looking at you.)
I like this idea.
This is exactly why steam reviews are a better indicator of quality than regular website reviews.. their reviews reflect changes that tons of games go through, which basically the norm these days.
Day one reviews are irrelevent a month or two after release in a lot of cases.
Both approaches have their place.
If anything I'd say that the majority of reviews tend to treat the game as software and tech rather than a piece of cultural art. I'd actually like to see more of the book/movie kind of review.
Launch condition, the game was put out into the wild in that condition, it should be judged by that condition. (Barring day one patches, I forgive those).
Games can, and sometimes should, be rereviewed after major updates/corrections that fundamentally change the experience, like Siege/FF14, as launch reviews of those games would not be indicative of their current status.
I'm also okay with reviewers mentioning that the game could be great after some updates, as long as they don't bump up the score based on that.
Games can, and sometimes should, be rereviewed after major updates/corrections that fundamentally change the experience, like Siege/FF14, as launch reviews of those games would not be indicative of their current status.
I'm also okay with reviewers mentioning that the game could be great after some updates, as long as they don't bump up the score based on that.
This sounds like a horrible idea. Do you have any examples for sites who did this with Bleeding Edge?
Review both. With films you can get separate reviews for theatrical cuts and director's cuts/extended editions, no reason that shouldn't apply to games as well.
Kingdom of Heaven got mediocre reviews upon its release in cinemas but then received praise when the director's cut came out on DVD.
Kingdom of Heaven got mediocre reviews upon its release in cinemas but then received praise when the director's cut came out on DVD.
The review should be based on the product in hand, but I don't think a small mention of potential is out of the question. It shouldn't impact the score or yes/no verdict, but it should be pointed out that your experience may be better if you come to the game later than launch.
Check out how Linus Tech Tips, MKBHD, or other tech reviewers end up reviewing tech products. They do not assign an end-score to the product because most tech is ever-changing with multiple revisions. Instead, they simply show what the product is, describe it in great detail including what you can and can't do with it, give their take on what's good and bad in it's current form, tell the company what they would like to see improved in the next iteration, and at the end leave the viewer with an open ended question of 'is this for you and will you buy it?' letting the audience themselves decide whether to buy it or not based on the given information.
We can and should do this with video games. We show the product, give a quick synopsis on what its story and systems are about and give a quick showcase on how the game plays day 1, including all flaws and positives featuring zero bias with a personal reviewer opinion near the end with what the reviewer would like to see from the product in the future. Not everyone has the humble ability to go back and edit a review after a game has been fixed for the better, so currently what you end up with is a game that could have came out to a bunch of negative reviews not fully reflecting the better product it turned out to be a year from then, including a wild amount of day 1 misinformation about the game when a casual viewer decides to look up a review. Case in point: Elder Scrolls Online.
The current way we review games is comparable to movies. Except for the recent movie Cats(which mainly patched the movie's CGI issues), I can't think of any movie that released that has been patched day 1, day 10, or day 100. Normally no one counts bonus footage versions and extended edition blu-rays because the amount if important narrative they provide to a finished movie is next to zero, as they only slightly affect the pacing of a movie by a few minutes. I don't see the Snyder cut ever happening for Justice League because it would go against everything movies currently stand for, which is what you see is what you get.
Giant bomb is one of the few websites currently on the right track with how video game reviews should be handled, and they are giving out less and less star reviews because of this, which is ultimately a good thing.
Is it done and dusted outside of bug fixes and patches - Day 1 score only.
Does a later patch have something significant enough to alter the score (microtransactions introduced, lootboxes added, etc) - Updated score, with the old alongside.
If you KNOW something is coming out in a week or two that changes things, then hold off the review
Does a later patch have something significant enough to alter the score (microtransactions introduced, lootboxes added, etc) - Updated score, with the old alongside.
If you KNOW something is coming out in a week or two that changes things, then hold off the review
You cant review what doesn't exist. You can review the current state of the game when it's probably going to get most of its sales
The launch condition for sure but I feel like with most of these "buggy" games the issues go deeper than just the bugs and glitches.
