>-Baron-Spamedi-<
Member
Yes. I can see how asking a reviewer to do another review would be a waste of his time.
Oh no, wait. That's what a reviewer gets paid for. Like, um, reviewing.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Driveclub Reviewed again by GamesRadar. Should others follow?
- Thread starter Game4life
- Start date
Yes. I can see how asking a reviewer to do another review would be a waste of his time.
Oh no, wait. That's what a reviewer gets paid for. Like, um, reviewing.
what
Ingueferroque
Banned
Thank god we now live in an age where games get patches/free upgrades/additions.
I would rather they (meaning sites in general) re-review games during slow news times than to create console wars articles.
Edited my post to clarify. Sorry for the confusion.
Freedom = $1.05
Banned
i want a reviews for a game at or around its launch. It's up to developers and publishers to have their game ready and for it to be decent when it launches. If they don't want bad reviews then make a decent game and make sure it's technically sound. they know the review process better than anyone, it isn't as if they were struck with a sudden change in review protocol when drive club came out that took them by surprise.
If sites want to go back and review a game then to each their own.
But that they SHOULD do it? Naw, they didn't do anything wrong the first time around and shouldn't be required to keep up with something after the fact.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
Others sites can if they're so inclined. But whether they SHOULD?
No.
The reviews are a snapshot and were correct at that point in time. There's plenty of followup articles about how the game has changed since then that people can find.
No.
The reviews are a snapshot and were correct at that point in time. There's plenty of followup articles about how the game has changed since then that people can find.
It's certainly a better game than it was at launch and that is something to make note of. But, if you don't release a product that works day one you should suffer the consequences and not get a mulligan when you finally get paying customers up an running two months later and then follow up on the trial version more than seven months after that.
The original review said the game was great anyway.
Devilgunman
Member
It's not the website's or magazine's responsibility to keep tracking on improvement of certain game. The review reflects the quality of a game at launch and serves the purpose of informing initial buyers what they're going to get out of the gate. If you want to buy an old game, you shouldn't read a review from journalists. You read review from communities eg. user reviews on Amazon, Bestbuy, Steam etc.
Disaster Nebraska
Banned
It is a much better use of their time compared to meaningless crusades, Ton 10 lists containing youtube content from non-affiliated creators, and YOU WON'T BELIEVE clickbait articles.
If they want to stay in business, then it's their responsiblity to appease the readers. The End.
No one is calling for universal change and it's bizarre how opposed to this idea some people are. I imagine it would be a much better use of journalists' time compared to lots of the shit articles they ('they' being journalists in general) already write. If it provides a service to a bunch of readers, I hope the websites who provide re-reviews make a lot of ad revenue and chase the websites who're stuck in their ways out of the market.
I can understand why, since the game has had a massive number of new features, content and updates, to the extent that in many ways it is a different game. At the end of the day, a review is supposed to tell gamers what to expect when they buy the game to play for themselves, and whether it's worth it based on that. In that regard, what they'll get when buying Driveclub today, is going to be completely different to what they'd have gotten buying it at launch. That said, whilst I appreciate all the after support Evolution has provided the game (best post release support of any game), I do think most of these new additions should have been there day one. Then again, It does feel like many of the things have been implemented based on user feedback, including GAF feedback, so I won't hold it against them too much. Evo/Rushy are clearly listening to us, and taking onboard the feedback in a pretty unprecedented way.
Liquidsnake
Banned
Zen_Arcade
Banned
But DriveClub's main problem was something they had no way to know about until it got released to the public. Even a lot of the initial reviews were good because the reviews didn't have the same issues that the general public ended up having with the online features.
I didn't say that they should be required to do it. If a company is able and willing, it's a great idea to keep updated reviews on a medium that is constantly changing. It's far more beneficial to me as a consumer and fan of games. then a lot of what these games journalism websites churn out. Why shouldn't you read a review from journalists? It's still a perfectly viable option for any other medium, and in many cases, would even be perfectly viable for video games as well.
If I'm going to trust anyone's opinion, it's someone who I've followed in the past and I know is credible. Not Joey Bumfuck posting reviews on Amazon. I have no way to know if that guys opinion is worth a shit or not, because he's just some guy. If I were to listen to GAF hype and buy everything they said is good, I would have bought a lot of what I would consider mediocre games by now. And if it's a game where people actually disagree on, the information is useless because I don't know whose opinion to trust, because you're all just anonymous people on a message board and I have no idea if your tastes line up with mine.
bananafactory
Banned
I think the original review and impressions should be preserved, but an updated one makes sense because for people looking to buy the game now, the old review will be full of false information
Salty Hippo
Member
Will Gamesradar re-review Killer Instinct too now that both of their complaints about the game are long gone?
http://www.gamesradar.com/killer-instinct-review/
http://www.gamesradar.com/killer-instinct-review/
Freedom = $1.05
Banned
None of the bad network stuff affected reviewers as it only presented itself post launch. If anything, DC reviews actually benefitted from those issues not being present. It was reviewed for what it was before breaking and even then it wasn't the hottest of games.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
But what does that matter to people buying the game now? Other than for some academic purposes, why should anyone give a rat's ass what the game was like the day it was released - especially if the game is something that continuously gets changed and improved like WoW, to have an extreme example.
PJV3
Member
Agreed, if you're going to a restaurant you dont read a review from when it opened years ago. People seem to be hung up on the word review, perhaps call the update a buyers guide or something.
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
This is just stupid.
People already bought it.
People already bought it.
Ingueferroque
Banned
They shouldn't be, but.. they should. They are games journalists. If DriveClub received one or two small fixes, OK that does not warrant a re-review. But in DriveClub's case, we have had substantial upgrades, additional systems, a lot of free content, and overall the game is quite amazing now compared to its release state. Does that anger you?
Nice to see this thread back again - Should Driveclub be re-reviewed?
Not to single anyone out but this was the most succinct version of this viewpoint, leaving aside the obvious rejoinder that whats in the box has changed, its a viewpoint that strikes me as running contrary to the entire point and function of reviews.
The key utility and purpose of a review is to allow a potential customer to make a more informed decision about the product in question. If a game goes through significant enough changes that a new review is warranted then of course it should receive one, a review isnt a reward or punishment for the publisher and developer it's a tool for the consumer.
Reviews are, in aggregate, a useful source of information that generally take a minimal amount of time to peruse and process. More information, especially in a more easily digestible format than trawling forums, etc. is a good thing. Its better to be more informed than less informed. Reviews are simply a useful source of information. One which could be improved if reveiwers and review outlets put more effort into keeping them up to date.
Its baffling seeing people calling for reviews to stay static as if their limited use as a historic record someone trumps their key value as a current information source. Even then an addended review format would meet that need. Why should current or future consumers be punished with inaccurate information because reviews have to be "What's in the box" at launch? For some games what was in the box is almost an entirely different beast from the game as it stands now, reviews of, for example, Warframe, from a year ago are entirely inaccurate in describing the current game.
The idea that any evolving medium shouldnt have re-reviews is so asinine that it shouldnt even be up for consideration. We should be discussing the nature and format of updated reviews not whether they should exist or not. For my money I think reviews should clearly state the date on which they were published, if the game receives significant updates then the review should receive an, again clearly dated, addendum which addresses what has been added and how the (same) reviewer feels that has changed the game. If the outlet in question uses a numeric score they should include all of them, rather than updating a single one, and make the most recent one their "official" score for whatever reason they would need one.
If someone goes and looks at a review that has been rendered inaccurate, either in favour or against the game, due to updates the only person losing out there is the reader.
Not to single anyone out but this was the most succinct version of this viewpoint, leaving aside the obvious rejoinder that whats in the box has changed, its a viewpoint that strikes me as running contrary to the entire point and function of reviews.
The key utility and purpose of a review is to allow a potential customer to make a more informed decision about the product in question. If a game goes through significant enough changes that a new review is warranted then of course it should receive one, a review isnt a reward or punishment for the publisher and developer it's a tool for the consumer.
Reviews are, in aggregate, a useful source of information that generally take a minimal amount of time to peruse and process. More information, especially in a more easily digestible format than trawling forums, etc. is a good thing. Its better to be more informed than less informed. Reviews are simply a useful source of information. One which could be improved if reveiwers and review outlets put more effort into keeping them up to date.
Its baffling seeing people calling for reviews to stay static as if their limited use as a historic record someone trumps their key value as a current information source. Even then an addended review format would meet that need. Why should current or future consumers be punished with inaccurate information because reviews have to be "What's in the box" at launch? For some games what was in the box is almost an entirely different beast from the game as it stands now, reviews of, for example, Warframe, from a year ago are entirely inaccurate in describing the current game.
The idea that any evolving medium shouldnt have re-reviews is so asinine that it shouldnt even be up for consideration. We should be discussing the nature and format of updated reviews not whether they should exist or not. For my money I think reviews should clearly state the date on which they were published, if the game receives significant updates then the review should receive an, again clearly dated, addendum which addresses what has been added and how the (same) reviewer feels that has changed the game. If the outlet in question uses a numeric score they should include all of them, rather than updating a single one, and make the most recent one their "official" score for whatever reason they would need one.
If someone goes and looks at a review that has been rendered inaccurate, either in favour or against the game, due to updates the only person losing out there is the reader.
Freedom = $1.05
Banned
No, I just don't see this coming from any other fan base but drive clubs. Everyone else seems to be accepting of how reviews work but something about Drive Club fans, it's like they can't let it go.
LegendofDragoonLives
Member
In a nutshell.
Ingueferroque
Banned
Well said. It just seems so counter-intuitive to gaming as a whole to be so wholly against re-reviews. If it doesn't happen, fine. If it a reviewer wants to revisit a game after it has changed substantially.. what is the harm? It can only inform the consumer better. Anything that moves away from this 'release of the week' mentality is fine by me.
I don't know man.. if you leave Batman with a 1/10 review because it is so inherently broken, I think a publisher might just decide to cease all development and write the game off. But if they somehow come back in a few weeks and patch Batman so that all the problems are fixed (and then some), why the hell shouldn't it be re-reviewed? I'm sure I'd be interested in hearing/reading about the technical issues being fixed. I don't care if WB needs to get 'punished' over my right to be informed, that bad press surrounding the AK PC release is not going to go away anyway.
Tainted
Member
Original review at day 1 should stand and if a game has been significantly updated an addendum to the original review.
I realise driveclub deserves it due to all the updates it has received...but it sets a dangerous precedent.
How would people feel if post-patch, the PC version of Batman AK gets re-reviewed with 10/10 scores everywhere ?
We should not forget the past.
I realise driveclub deserves it due to all the updates it has received...but it sets a dangerous precedent.
How would people feel if post-patch, the PC version of Batman AK gets re-reviewed with 10/10 scores everywhere ?
We should not forget the past.
Why? No one wants reviews that aren't relevant anymore. You want to know what you'll be getting if you buy it today not a year ago.
Popsickles
Member
But if you are buying a car you want to know what condition it is in now not when it left the factory. I see nothing wrong with re-reviews I don't see why you do ?
Zen_Arcade
Banned
So wouldn't it have benefited consumers if after that launch these sites would have updated their reviews to let everyone know how broken it was? You're essentially giving another reason to back up why it would be a good idea for these sites to update reviews accordingly.
Well the old reviews shouldn't just disappear. But there is no reason why there can't be multiple reviews for the same game to show how the game has progressed. Journalists update articles without deleting the old ones all of the time.
Umm MCC got great reviews.
Also yeah if they feel their current review is no longer valid I still dont get the issues with changing it.
matrixman92
Member
Wtf no. Games shouldn't be given more than one chance. If it sucks on day one, it deserves negativity
And they had the reviews of the time to guide them. Now people who might buy or jump in due to te ps plus can see what they're in for accurately instead of reading an outdated and irrelevant review. If the gaming media wants to really do their job then updating game reviews regularly as they change is by far the best way. Keep the old scores in a line chart or something if so inclined.
The reason reviews aren't updated isn't because it isn't obviously a good idea, it's because it would take too much time for too few hits.
Personally I think there's a difference between updating a review once a game ACTUALLY launches, because in an ideal world that's when a game should be reviewed, especially one that relies on being online/multiplayer, and updating a review months later.
stan423321
Member
All I can find at the moment is PvZ:GW1 commentary, where they aren't explicit about this (we have historical data this way, though). So I guess disregard it. May have mixed it up with "we're gonna add microtransactions to all games" shenanigans.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
No. The 71 on metacritic seems about right. I know this game has a huge following on GAF but it's not very good from what I've played.
SirMossyBloke
Member
Nope.
If someone was looking to buy the game today do they read the old review which is, at this point, almost completely wrong, or do they review a game based on what it actually is.
Even directors cuts of movies get their own reviews.
The question this thread is based on isn't "did you like the game". You completely missed the point.
NullPointer
Member
This is why I judge everybody I meet by their baby pictures.
You have ONE chance people. Drool and you're OUT.
It's up to the review site. If they think an updated review would benefit an adequate number of readers, sure. Ideally all games should have updated reviews, because unlike books and movies, games evolve over time. But we all know that content creation on websites takes time and money. So it's really up to the website to decide if it's worth it.
To the people saying you review what's in the box, don't some games not even function properly without their day one or later patches? There was one game I remember reading about that couldn't even be completed without it's day one patch, so really I'm not sure how relevant that notion is. I suppose you could in theory have one review that reviews the game content only as it is on the disk (for people without internet connections), and another based on how it plays with the updates that are available for it, but that seems rather longwinded.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
I mean, I've never even played DriveClub. So I'm part of that "Everyone else" and I don't know where you're getting this idea from. I just think that reviews should do what they're supposed to do. The only reason it comes up so often with DriveClub is because it was a pretty eligible game to re-review.
I really don't see why there should be a difference. In both cases it's a game being changed in one way or another that consumers should know about.
Such is the nature of an addendum, as you said. Not replacing. Not erasing. Updating.
And so fucking what if AK gets 10s on PC after it gets fixed and it (theoretically) runs amazingly? A review is a buyer's guide, not a history lesson.