Support NeoGAF

[Conkerkid11]

If re-reviewing where to become common practice it would only encourage more games being released as a broken mess. It's bad enough as it is.

It would also promote fixing your game eventually, which a vast majority of games still do not do.

Bad reviews at launch will decrease potential sales.

Why would a developer intentionally release a bad product, just to fix it later, just because they know that some of the review scores will be adjusted? How does that benefit them more than simply delaying the launch?

 

[thelastcrusader]

It honestly depends on the website's policy. In my opinion, re-reviewing is a good practice because if you're using a website to read reviews, chances are that you have connected your system to internet and will enjoy (or not) patches. If somebody wants to review the box version only, I won't stop them.

It shall be mentioned that some patches make games worse; EA explicitly confirmed that microtransactions in their games are going to be patched in (with patches mandatory for online play), probably due to lack of re-reviewing. Oh well.

Link for this statement?

 

[Disaster Nebraska]

Naw, you review what's in the box.

That'd be nice if it was still 2004. Games change and improve (or get worse, depending). Since a lot of titles are still getting purchased months or years after that initial launch, it does the gaming public a service when an outlet is willing to re-review it.

After all, the point is to offer a more-or-less accurate image of what the game is. If the review from a while ago is no longer accurate, what's the harm in updating?

 

[Mushroomer25]

It could be helpful considering the PS Plus release, but I doubt most outlets care. The game's old hat at this point - why waste time on another review? Sure, you're placate some angry people on the internet. But is that really worth it?

 

[farmerboy]

You know what? It had its problems, but it was a good game out of the box and should have been reviewed as such then, not now.

Reviews got it wrong the first time around.

 

[Fitts]

No because reviews don't shouldn't matter.

 

[NullPointer]

Additionally, do you guys think Driveclub should have received even lower scores when the launch/servers were screwed up?

Absolutely. People who were looking forward to the online aspects of the game at launch deserved to know the real deal. If reviews were written and scored based upon the closed beta servers outlets would be doing their audience a service to update those reviews and reduce the scores based upon the public servers at launch.

Reviews got it wrong the first time around.

Yeah, there are a few reviews that made zero sense to me. They were reviewing how well the game stacked up to something they made up in their own mind, not by how well the game did what it was designed to do. Seems like a common pitfall with reviews.

 

[jaypah]

I'm down with adding to a review later. Just completely redoing it says, "release your game in any state, if you fix it later we'll review it again". Adding to the review helps new potential customers know that the game is now better than it was and reminds people that it wasn't as good at the start. I think that's fine.

 

[>-Baron-Spamedi-<]

No, it sets a bad precedent and puts the Idea in a publishers head that they can shit out a product and patch it into something decent "later". I haven't played drive club except at a demo kiosk at best buy as I own an xbox one, Im sure the game is great now but that doesn't excuse the sorry state that it might've launched in, in october.

That's just nonsense.
Sales are invariably front loaded.
No publisher or developer wants a screw up that can potentially wreck sales.

It's state in October was poor. It's state now is very good.
Someone buying it now needs to know what it's like now, not what it was like then.
The review is meant to help provide that information, it's not meant to be a punishment to satisfy vindictive gamers or reviewers.

 

[Conkerkid11]

No because reviews don't shouldn't matter.

But they do.

 

[jizzlobber]

No way, games need to be working day 1.

Even games like forza 5 which have added free content don't deserve to be reviewed again.

 

[msdstc]

Nah.

Spotlight is already back on it again.

No not really though, damage is done sorry guys.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

If your goal is to give potential buyers an idea what the game is like now, re-review it.
If you want your review to be an assessment of the product at release, don't re-review it.

 

[BlackClouds]

If re-reviewing where to become common practice it would only encourage more games being released as a broken mess. It's bad enough as it is.

That cat is already out of the bag and there's no going back. Now you have selective outrage where some games get away with it, and some don't.

 

[5taquitos]

I really don't understand what Day 1 has to do with anything, especially if I'm looking to buy something a year later. As a consumer, I couldn't give a fuck how it played on Day 1 if it's not actually Day 1. I want to know how it plays on Day Now.

 

[jizzlobber]

That's just nonsense.
Sales are invariably front loaded.
No publisher or developer wants a screw up that can potentially wreck sales.

It's state in October was poor. It's state now is very good.
Someone buying it now needs to know what it's like now, not what it was like then.
The review is meant to help provide that information, it's not meant to be a punishment to satisfy vindictive gamers or reviewers.

So add a small update to the end of the review.

 

[herod]

I'll just read the most recent review. This only works in quiet periods when there is nothing else to review though. I don't really ascribe any significance to review sites though. Some people treat review scores of their favourite games like it's part of their fucking identity.

 

[Popsickles]

Naw, you review what's in the box.

But with this attitude people could miss out on a good game, if a dev makes significant changes to a title which makes it a more attractive purchase especially as it will be a fraction of the price now compared to release, why shouldnt it be re-rated.

 

[Jotamide]

They put out a broken product and deserve all the shit than comes with it.

But with this attitude people could miss out on a good game, if a dev makes significant changes to a title which makes it a more attractive purchase especially as it will be a fraction of the price now compared to release, why shouldnt it be re-rated.

So what? The whole point of reviews is to inform customers on the quality of a game at release. If it improves over time, you can go on YouTube or your favorite gaming website and ask for second impressions.

 

[WrenchNinja]

But with this attitude people could miss out on a good game, if a dev makes significant changes to a title which makes it a more attractive purchase especially as it will be a fraction of the price now compared to release, why shouldnt it be re-rated.

Should have been good in the first place.

 

[DeepEnigma]

No, scores shouldn't be updated. Just gives Developers/Publishers more powers to screw us over. Release a game broken, it gets a bad reception and year later after 20 patches it gets a 9/10.

No, it sets a bad precedent and puts the Idea in a publishers head that they can shit out a product and patch it into something decent "later". I haven't played drive club except at a demo kiosk at best buy as I own an xbox one, Im sure the game is great now but that doesn't excuse the sorry state that it might've launched in, in october.

This is a silly argument, because games that come out "shitty" lose the most important time of sales, and that is the first two weeks to a month. Most games do not have legs that compare to that release window. So they will still push to put out the best product they can on the budget and time allotted.

So an initial bad review will cause them to suffer, but if they make good, and turn the game around, then gamers who are looking to buy 8 months down the road should be able to see that. It is not the same game and the review in essence would be disingenuous at that point, and factually incorrect.

Amendment to those reviews should also stress that the game requires online to receive the patches needed for the new experience. Yes, a lot of people are ignorant to these things.

 

[Gestault]

I don't mind rereviews, I just wonder what the standard will be, how it can be encouraged or enforced, and if/how we retroactively look at many other titles that have undergone changes.

Additionally, do you guys think Driveclub should have received even lower scores when the launch/servers were screwed up? If you support changing scores, then why not support this? If I recall, Driveclub's scores were not reflective of the online problems that followed.

Driveclub would have gotten more negative reviews than it did at launch if reviewers updated them to take into account the networking issues. I only think reviews matter when they're written with consideration for an audience, so outlets should already be taking what those people want to know into account when they make changes to game recommendations over time. The idea that writers are obligated to change their scores to reflect later changes is what I disagree with.

People don't "need" reviews like they did in the past because of how easy the flow of information about a game is from audiences themselves. A lot of this conversation is people seeking validation for conclusions they've already come to, and I think not everyone's thought through how that could backfire, even for the game in this situation.

 

[Ingueferroque]

Naw, you review what's in the box.

Reviews aren't meant for developers, they are meant for consumers.

If someone would publish another review for World of Warcraft in 2015, should they review the version that released in the initial SKU? What about Team Fortress 2?

This can only ENCOURAGE developers from fixing their mistakes, not just dropping their product because it was broken or negatively received. In case of DriveClub, they more than deserve to be re-reviewed as they have rebounded immensely.

 

[travisbickle]

Yeah might as well, it's a consumer guide. People need to stop viewing reviews as a moral compass for publishers.

 

[Conkerkid11]

They put out a broken product and deserve all the shit than comes with it.

And it's absolutely impossible for the updated review to point the reader to the old review, or mention how the game was at launch, much like this review does in the opening paragraph?

Alright then.

 

[alatif113]

Its hilarious at how some people's vendetta against a game can cloud their definition of what a review really is. Its not there to "punish" developers but rather help consumers make their purchasing decision. If the game is fine now and other sites want to re-review it, i applaud them for being genuine to their audience.

 

[>-Baron-Spamedi-<]

I'm down with adding to a review later. Just completely redoing it says, "release your game in any state, if you fix it later we'll review it again". Adding to the review helps new potential customers know that the game is now better than it was and reminds people that it wasn't as good at the start. I think that's fine.

I'm all for this.
Actually it should be for any game that has undergone significant changes whether positive OR negative. An example of a negative change might be a game that releases with significant online features but later loses them when servers are shut down.

Up to date information only benefits consumers. Those suggesting otherwise are being oddly short sighted.

 

[GeordieMark]

It's really entirely up to the individual reviewers to decide whether they want to re-review games. I've nothing against the practice, and in some cases is probably worth doing if a game has significantly changed.

I don't think anyone can complain if a game doesn't get a re-review though. All games get the same opportunity, knowing they will be subject to review on release. If the game doesn't do itself justice, the devs and/or publisher only have themselves to blame.

 

[TheGraykid]

A review isn't just a "buyer's guide", it's a written record of what this piece of art was when it dropped. And years from now, people will be able to go back and see what IGN and GameSpot thought about those games on their release date and get a sense of their effect on the gaming Zeitgeist of the time. Replacing old reviews sounds like revisionist history to me, but writing seperate addendums to reviews like for example "Minecraft review-2017 edition" I'm okay with. They should definitely be separate though, like releases of Director cuts of movies.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Its hilarious at how some people's vendetta against a game can cloud their definition of what a review really is. Its not there to "punish" developers but rather help consumers make their purchasing decision. If the game is fine now and other sites want to re-review it, i applaud them for being genuine to their audience.

Pretty much this.

A review isn't just a "buyer's guide", it's a written record of what this piece of art was when it dropped. And years from now, people will be able to go back and see what IGN and GameSpot thought about those games on their release date and get a sense of their effect on the gaming Zeitgeist of the time. Replacing old reviews sounds like revisionist history to me, but writing seperate addendums to reviews like for example "Minecraft review-2017 edition" I'm okay with. They should definitely be separate though, like releases of Director cuts of movies.

I do not think anyone is calling for a review to be replaced in here. From what I see, those in favor of amending a review, said just that. You amend it. The original stays, but points to the updated amendment.

So essentially I agree with you, lol.

 

[robertlebrone]

People can find out whether or not a game has improved in a number of different ways. Having reviewers go back and re-review months old games would be a tremendous waste of time.

 

[Loudninja]

People can find out whether or not a game has improved in a number of different ways. Having reviewers go back and re-review months old games would be a tremendous waste of time.

If they want to do it why is it consider a waste of time?

 

[Stallion Dan]

Naw, you review what's in the box.

How can you do that with online features that you cannot access unless patched to latest patch?

 

[DarkJedi24]

Makes sense to update reviews to reflect the current state of a game. If someone today was looking at reviews for a game they are thinking of picking up, having outdated reviews that do not represent the current state of a game would be doing the reader a disservice. So if sites wish to demonstrate they care about informing the consumer, and not just about clicks, it would be justifiable from a PR standpoint.

 

[OccamsLightsaber]

I play everyday, 60m points and in top 40 club, no I don't think it should be "reviewed". More of a "redemption" article. Not many devs support their games post launch. Driveclub and BF4 are one of the few games that deserve that kind of praise.

 

[Ingueferroque]

You review what's in the box. If they didn't want bad reviews then they should've made certain that what was in the box was worth purchasing.

Reviews are meant to be a means of informing the consumer as to the quality of the product. That the quality shifts isn't something that should be rewarded with a positive review in the same sense that we shouldnt go back and hold older games accountable for not updating their mechanics to modern standards.

Uh... what the heck? This isn't about rewarding or punishing developers, this is about informing the consumers.

If a developer puts in additional effort to go 180 on a product's inherent quality, why should we not let consumers know that this game has significantly changed?

You are saying, prevent developers from releasing flawed products and use reviews to punish them in case they do. Whilst I understand what you are saying, I think the opposite approach yields much more positive results towards the consumer, going forward.

That said, a re-review should always be within context of the original review, preferably as an addendum.

 

[Huggers]

Glad they re-reviewed it. I bought Driveclub super cheap a few weeks ago expecting very little. What I got absolutely has blown me away. My favourite driving game in years. Beautiful and exhilarating

 

[DeepEnigma]

Makes sense to update reviews to reflect the current state of a game. If someone today was looking at reviews for a game they are thinking of picking up, having outdated reviews that do not represent the current state of a game would be doing the reader a disservice. So if sites wish to demonstrate they care about informing the consumer, and not just about clicks, it would be justifiable from a PR standpoint.

Agreed with this as well.

Games have evolved, and so should reviews. We are no longer in the days of fixed cartridges.

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

How can you do that with online features that you cannot access unless patched to latest patch?

Devs and publishers send out the review copies, that's for them to figure out.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Naw, you review what's in the box.

If people read the review for the first time today, the only way it would reflect what is in the box is if they re-reviewed it. If they left it as is and had an article talking about how broken it was at launch it wouldn't reflect what someone would get in the box if they went out and bought the game right now.

 

[Courage]

If they want to do it why is it consider a waste of time?

The thread is asking SHOULD they follow. If they want to dedicate resources to re-reviewing a game then more power to them.

 

[OccamsLightsaber]

If people read the review for the first time today, the only way it would reflect what is in the box is if they re-reviewed it. If they left it as is and had an article talking about how broken it was at launch it wouldn't reflect what someone would get in the box if they went out and bought the game right now.

.

 

[Ingueferroque]

Devs and publishers send out the review copies, that's for them to figure out.

So you don't so much care about the quality of a game, you just want the quickest and most efficient way to judge/label a release and move on?

 

[bryanee]

I'm ok with re-reviews. Much more helpful for people down the line, especially if a game has been significantly improved or got a lot worse.

 

[NullPointer]

How can you do that with online features that you cannot access unless patched to latest patch?

And its pretty crazy that a game like Warframe has all of these ancient reviews out there, back to 2013. Compared to its launch its an entirely different game, in every way.

I don't know a reasonable answer that doesn't put an insane workload on reviewers, but as more and more games come out with strong online components and that evolve with their communities the more we're going to need new ways of doing reviews.

For right now, a launch review with some updates if deemed warranted like we're seeing is a fine start. Its not a should thing... yet.

 

[Lord Error]

Driveclub's moment in the spotlight has passed. You only get one release, you only make one first impression.

Updated reviews make sense for people buying the game today. Millions of people will buy their PS4 from this day until the end of the year, and why should they ever care what Driveclub was like six months or a year ago?

 

[Jinfash]

Nah.

Spotlight is already back on it again.

Nah.

I don't think anyone outside the fishbowl believes that.

 

[Rain City Gamer]

Yes they should update it.

Reviews are designed for CURRENT buyers. I get that people want to punish the Devs/Sony for not having things working at launch but that is irrelevant to someone who is purchasing the game today. Games are constantly evolving with patches and DLC, it is time for review sites to evolve with them.

 

[ALLseeingEYE]

Naw, you review what's in the box.

What's in the box now is apparently great, and as such, the review should be updated to reflect this. Why continue to spread misinformation about a now great game? It bothers me as a user when I can't find good information about games that are significantly better now, and that I may even end up missing, because of the misinformation.

 

[DayEnder]

The thread is asking SHOULD they follow. If they want to dedicate resources to re-reviewing a game then more power to them.

I would prefer they (sites in general) re-review games than to dedicate resources to pumping out flame bait (console wars) articles to generate clicks.