Support NeoGAF

[Game4life]

So Driveclub is amazing in my opinion. I think no other racer so far has captured that sense of speed and adrenaline that comes from racing as well as DC this gen. So I was pleasanty surprised seeing the game reviewed again by Gamesrader and they gave it a 4.5/5. Some quotes from the review

When Driveclub arrived last year, it was a hot mess. The servers were so flaky, not only was the game's main selling point - its online clubs - reduced to a scintillating game of 'can I even connect today?', Sony decided it was pointless releasing the PS Plus-exclusive trial edition. Well, that's all changed. Not only is the PS Plus edition now on PSN, the original game has been updated (for free) in so many ways, our original review no longer reflected its quality. So it's time to evaluate the Driveclub experience once again.

But even the tour mode feels like it's had some liquid vitality injected into its fuel tank. Driveclub had a slow, sleepy start, but the version that you can buy right now looks incredible, is enjoyable for beginners and racing veterans, and is one of the best examples of online integration yet seen. And any game that frequently has me saying 'I can't believe how good this is' has got to be doing something right. Driveclub is absolutely the best racing game on PS4, and I can't wait to see how it develops next.

More at the link - http://www.gamesradar.com/driveclub-review/

Driveclub received so many updates post its release that is significantly a better game today than it was before. Do you think games should be re reviewed as time goes on?
Of course those who did not like the mechanics in the first place will not find anything new that warrants a re review but those who were put of by the lack of options , replays weather etc.. at launch could see their opinion change if they were to give this wonderful game a shot again.

Do you think more sites will review Driveclub again? Is it even possible to monitor games for updates and update their scores accordingly? I dont think most gaming sites would have the manpower to track all these old games and keep reviewing them based on the patches and updates that they receive but that is just me. What do you think GAF?

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

Naw, you review what's in the box.

 

[McDougles]

Nobody "should." Sony "should" have had a competent release.

 

[Toki767]

What ever happened to Polygon's changing score system?

I doubt most media will review it over again unless it comes out as an entirely new package the way Reaper of Souls is for Diablo 3.

 

[Pankratous]

That's great news. Game absolutely should be re-reviewed (as should all games after so much more content is given (particularly free content)).

 

[Led_Zeppelin]

No, a review of a game is its status at release. No one should feel oblige to do a new review no matter how much Driveclub has been improving over the last months. Also I am STILL downloading the updates for Driveclub PS+ edition... god damn it the download has crashed and burned twice already I am getting really piss off.

 

[Fbh]

If they feel like it. But I'm fine with reviews being based on how the game was at launch

Honestly, now with the Ps+ version most people can just check out a good portion of the game to see if it's something they would like. For me personally it has done a better job at convincing me to get the game than any revised review

 

[R3TRODYCE]

Naw, you review what's in the box.

Great game but I agree with this.

 

[PodcastFips]

I never really understood most of the reviews in the first place, so I doubt anything would change.

 

[TimeEffect]

No one is obligated to redo their reviews. You should have the game up to par at launch. If not, support the community and better luck next time around.

I feel a sequel would do very well, but it seems that it may not happen, sadly.

I wonder if they will rerelease it somehow.

 

[Ryu]

I actually think it's great. In a world where there's tons of DLC, patches, updates, etc etc, games only seem to get better with age. It's especially good for people who wait for price drops or pick stuff up on a budget. A review of Driveclub when it was 65 in October may have been on point then, but it's certainly not on point now at $25 with all the changes that have occurred.

 

[blastprocessor]

Yes re-review is what's needed given patches (which let's admit it has given the game new features).

 

[TheBoss1]

Maybe but I still think the original review should stay up. Publishers shouldn't be let off the hook for releasing unfinished games. We need to support a higher standard of quality games on release day.

 

[Loudninja]

If they want to sure.

I see no problem in this especially with its significant stuff.

 

[marc^o^]

Naw, you review what's in the box.

the original game has been updated (for free) in so many ways, our original review no longer reflected its quality.

How do you contradict that though, it makes perfect sense.

 

[RoboPlato]

I do think updated reviews are very useful but they don't negate the original score and impression.

 

[Nerix]

Don't think a game should be reviewed twice. If that becomes common, devs think they can release a game and fix it later (they do it anyway, but eventually it would get more widespreaded).

To inform their readers they can just publish a short update note what was patched since release.

 

[NullPointer]

Naw, you review what's in the box.

Whats in the box is not what you play though, what with all the patches and updates.

I generally agree with the idea that ongoing games should have some kind of ongoing coverage, or at least some periodic revisits. But I'm fine with each outlet working that out for themselves.

There are some current gen games that are very different from what they were at launch and its something I expect to be the case with more and more games.

 

[Prophet Steve]

I don't think it is really their responsibility to go back to a game after it is released. Definitely appreciated though.

 

[Haunted]

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

 

[godhandiscen]

A fixed score for evolving software does not make sense, it misinforms current customers. That being said, how often should you update such score? A year from now when better racers show up in the scene, should the score be updated again?

Regardless, the universal criticism for the original release was warranted.

 

[Pankratous]

I don't understand this "review what came in the box" mentality. Very few games end up being what comes in the box.

Stuff is fixed and stuff is added. Do you also rate services (such as Spotify) based on its day one quality?

 

[Loudninja]

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

Nah.

Spotlight is already back on it again.

 

[Game4life]

Maybe but I still think the original review should stay up. Publishers shouldn't be let off the hook for releasing unfinished games. We need to support a higher standard of quality games on release day.

True but those initial reviews already punished the publisher right? If we assume a review is meant to inform a consumer before a purchase it could be argued that the current review 'may not' be what the consumer is getting if he/she were to purchase the game today. I do agree that it is a tricky situation.

 

[Damerman]

Naw, you review what's in the box.

so lets completely ignore the overtime they put to address issues.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

Whats in the box is not what you play though, what with all the patches and updates.

I generally agree with the idea that ongoing games should have some kind of ongoing coverage, or periodic visits. But I'm fine with each outlet deciding that for themselves.

There are some current gen games that are very different from what they were at launch.

I think I remember someone from IGN (probably on Podcast Unlocked) stating that the reason they don't do this is because traffic falls away from reviews so quickly. In an ideal world, games would be reviewed on a per-patch basis - but it's not economical to do so.

 

[VanWinkle]

I think this is a great thing. I'll tell you why.

When a game releases, reviews come out for the game you get out of the box (plus maybe any day one patches). People will make their decision based on that. If the game's not good at launch, a person will see those negative reviews, and make their decision accordingly.

However, if a game improves a ton post-launch, and the old reviews are still there, new purchasers will look at reviews and see the game is not good, even if that isn't indicative of how it is in its current state. That's not good. The game these new buyers are looking into is NOT the same game that was reviewed at launch. It's not important to them what the game was like at launch. If they see reviews have been updated and better, however, they may decide to buy it.

 

[NullPointer]

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

That's not how games work any more. That retail disk is just the beginning.

I In an ideal world, games would be reviewed on a per-patch basis - but it's not economical to do so.

Yeah, that's a lot of work to put in to keep current with all the games out there, even just the more popular ones. Not sure that there's a simple and economical answer here.

 

[Conkerkid11]

Great game but I agree with this.

But aren't reviews supposed to tell a person whether or not a game's worth purchasing? I mean, sure, if I were intending on hopping in a time machine before picking up Driveclub, the current state of the game's reviews would make sense, but if I wanted to know about the game right this very second, the reviews would be very misleading.

 

[Tagyhag]

They can make an addendum but the original review should absolutely stay.

Otherwise, they should re-review all the games because their graphics and gameplay will get more obsolete as time passes.

 

[IKizzLE]

Nah, you review what is out the box day 1. Onus is on companies to deliver games that work day 1. Too much of a slippery slope if reviewers start 're reviewing every patch. If Sony wants better reviews, release Driveclub: World Tour that is a Diablo-esque 're release with all the contents and updates available with a new location, New racing disciplines and motorcycles.

 

[Omega Kirby]

Time to give battlefield 4 and pvz gw the 9.5 they deserve

 

[BouncyFrag]

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.

 

[TimeEffect]

True but those initial reviews already punished the publisher right? If we assume a review is meant to inform a consumer before a purchase it could be argued that the current review 'may not' be what the consumer is getting if he/she were to purchase the game today. I do agree that it is a tricky situation.

I just don't think the onus should be on the reviewer to go back to a bunch of games they reviewed before and assess the changes.

If it's a big enough deal, the publisher should resend review copies or repackage the game as some kind of... I don't know, ultimate edition or something, with the additional content on the disc

 

[Profeta Del Nopal]

Developers should always strive to make a good first impression.

Otherwise, we'll end up with buggy releases and incomplete games full of future paid DLC.

Oh, wait.

 

[Loudninja]

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.

Yeah no it wont,the first review will always stick around.

 

[Sykra]

Surely the best season pass yet, and i'm not a fan of them at all.

 

[Khayam]

Of course it should be more standard when a game drastically changes.

I mean, if you're a customer and you're trying to see if a game is worth your money, you want to know what it's worth at the moment you're buying it, no what it was when released.

Customers asking for games NOT to be re-reviewed ever are basically fucking themselves.

 

[Human_me]

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.

This.

I love Driveclub but I do feel that publishers are getting too cosy with the idea of releasing first and fix later.
However in Driveclub case soo much has changed that it almost feels like a different game compared to when it originally released, which deserves a new review.

 

[Bloodrage]

Release it "too soon" and people will bitch because it wasn't ready yet.

Release it "when it's 100% ready", weather, more content, stable online experience, and people will bitch because it took or is taking too long.

Don't reveal the game unless it's close to release, and people will bitch because it took too long for Sony to show a new game.

Seems like either way, Driveclub was destined to put up with this.

 

[Black Pewter]

If a review is actually meant as a buying guide and not just 'hurdur this game bad lel' then yeah it should. If the value proposition offered by a game has improved, especially as much as driveclub apparently has, then reviewers should be able to change their score to reflect that.

 

[samuraidino]

Reviews should help inform a customer.

A review from a year ago of a game that was busted may not exactly help someone a year down the line when/if the problems have been fixed.

Its not practical to rereview every game,but I think if there's been significant enough changes added to a game to the point where it legitimately desveres to be rereviewed then im OK with that.

 

[jesu]

They originally gave it a 4

While too simplified to be a sim and too serious to be an arcade racer, Driveclub's online integration, beautiful environments and accessible handling make for a great new-gen racing package.

now they are saying it was a hot mess at launch.
Re-reviewing it bumped the score up to 4.5

Weird.

 

[WrenchNinja]

No. Sony put out a busted game. Reviewers reviewed what was sold. It doesn't matter that they fixed it now.

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

so lets completely ignore the overtime they put to address issues.

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.

 

[Tripon]

No. If there is significant DLC, review that.

 

[VanWinkle]

They originally gave it a 4



now they are saying it was a hot mess at launch.
Re-reviewing it bumped the score up to 4.5

Weird.

Reviewers didn't have the online issues at launch.

 

[Lingitiz]

Reviews on launch should stand, but there's no harm in reviewing something after the fact. There's plenty of buyers like myself that are looking at something and wondering if it's worth buying now that it's been updated. It doesn't need to be a widespread thing and we shouldn't hold double standards for everyone to do it, but it's nice when some publications take the effort.

 

[Seanspeed]

Naw, you review what's in the box.

Box comes with disc and free 2 day PS+ pass.

10/10

 

[piccio_ssl]

love the game, but re-reviewing is just a stupid thing