I agree with this.
I agree with this too. The onus is not on the reviewer certainly. Yeah Sony could repackage the game and give some name to it and send it for review but yeah I dont think it would be worth the effort for Sony unfortunately.
-
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
I agree with this.
I agree with this too. The onus is not on the reviewer certainly. Yeah Sony could repackage the game and give some name to it and send it for review but yeah I dont think it would be worth the effort for Sony unfortunately.
>-Baron-Spamedi-<
Member
If any game undergoes significant changes or improvements then of course a new review can be justified.
Saying "No, review what's in the box" is a poor and invalid argument.
The purpose of a review is to inform potential consumers about a product.
Someone trying to decide whether to buy Driveclub now needs a review that reflects its current status.
A review based on its status when it first came out would have very little relevance to the product as it stands now.
Saying "No, review what's in the box" is a poor and invalid argument.
The purpose of a review is to inform potential consumers about a product.
Someone trying to decide whether to buy Driveclub now needs a review that reflects its current status.
A review based on its status when it first came out would have very little relevance to the product as it stands now.
Doctor_Thomas
Member
I have a digital copy and the digital copy is no longer "available" in the state it was in at launch.
I would tend to agree. Re-reviewing tends to set a bad precident, but I think with Driveclub, it's not just a patch to fix things, it's like a totally different game.
DarthPrince
Member
I personally think reviews should be completely agnostic of price. A review should highlight the pros and cons of the game and it should be up to the reader to decide how much money that is worth.
On topic, I wouldn't want re-reviews to become a thing. I would much rather have competent releases. If the game is released broken, then that's the stigma it should bear forever. I understand this is a bit harsh, as sometimes devs are locked into schedules and are forced into releasing unfinished games. However, in my opinion, that's just the nature of things.
I wouldn't mind post-mortems or other post launch articles that cover any improvements that patches etc have made after the game's release. But a review should always reflect the state of the game at launch.
While I agree with the general sentiment, I do think that having post launch reviews will pave the way for even more games to be broken upon release. I'm not saying "review what's in the box" is an ideal solution, it just seems like the lesser of two evils. From a consumer stand point at least. Also a lot of media outlets spend a lot of time and energy on their reviews, and there's never a lack of games to review. If all of a sudden they're asked to review the same games twice, a lot of other, potentially smaller games won't get reviewed at all. Everything comes at a cost unfortunately, and unless I've missed something here, I don't see how re reviewing games is worth it.
My two cents.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
This is no longer a cartridge based fixed ecosystem... it has evolved, and so should reviews.
If games continue to evolve like they do after it's release, and if it improves or declines from updates, then so should reviews. Not everyone is an early adopter, so it is a good measure for those 6-8 months later.
Both scores should stay if there is a scoring system. The original, and the amended.
If games continue to evolve like they do after it's release, and if it improves or declines from updates, then so should reviews. Not everyone is an early adopter, so it is a good measure for those 6-8 months later.
Both scores should stay if there is a scoring system. The original, and the amended.
So you think it'd fine if a person sees Driveclub on Amazon, thinks it looks interesting, checks the reviews on Metacritic, and sees that it has bad reviews? They would probably decide not to buy it, even though the game is not at all the same as it was in the launch reviews.
PJV3
Member
Yep, but link to the original review so history isn't rewritten.
Auto-Reply
Member
No second chance for making a good first impression.
Driveclub didn't review poorly from the majority of writers because of service issues. I agree that games should get their due, but this sounds more like wanting others to change their opinion to better match someone else's existing opinion of a game. I would bet that if reviewers went back to further criticize Driveclub compared to the original window, it would be upsetting for some.
NullPointer
Member
That the quality shifts doesn't guarantee that a re-review is going to be a positive change. It can go either way.
If reviews are meant to inform the customer as to the quality of the product and the quality has significantly changed, how is the customer being served with an out of date review?
I get that we don't want to reward broken launches - absolutely agreed on that point - but we're now living in an era of connected games, games as services, and games with significant patches and updates. The old model made perfect sense for the days of offline games, but doesn't fit any of the emerging paradigms.
Gaffercake
Member
You review the game as it was at the time.
A lot of games that were really well received 10 years ago wouldn't garner the same scores today, should they also be re-reviewed to reflect tastes and standards today?
A lot of games that were really well received 10 years ago wouldn't garner the same scores today, should they also be re-reviewed to reflect tastes and standards today?
None of these arguments make any sense except for the first. I doubt Sony is worried about people bitching since the vocal community doesn't really make up a large portion of a player base.
Also I don't think Ive ever heard about anyone bitching about revealing a game too close to release.
OfficerZap
Neo Member
Online games should be reviewed by what's in the box.
However, they definitely should receive a "how are they now" review twelve months later, so you know if it's better, if an online community still exists, if expansions are also required purchases to see others online, etc.
However, they definitely should receive a "how are they now" review twelve months later, so you know if it's better, if an online community still exists, if expansions are also required purchases to see others online, etc.
WrenchNinja
Member
Yes, I think that's fine.
TheBoss1
Member
That's why I proposed the idea of making sure the original review stayed up when they release an updated one. The could label the title with [UPDATED REVIEW] with the most recent date of re-review but still include the original version below the updated one.
Conkerkid11
Member
That's absolutely ridiculous.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
NullPointer
Member
Don't reviews take into account day one patches whenever possible? Thats not in the box.
But they still lose the initial customers when the game gets bad reviews. After a year, if the game is good, and a new buyer looks into the game, why do they care what the game was like at launch? Shouldn't they see what the game is like at the time they're buying it?
When there are big changes to a game that had missed potential, I'm a fan of this solution. If anything, this can act as encouragement for post-release support from developers, because it means their progress has visibility.
>-Baron-Spamedi-<
Member
No it wouldn't.
if we don't fairly acknowledge when developers put things right or add vast improvements then it could easily disincentivise them from doing so in the future.
The purpose of a review is to inform the consumer. It's not supposed to be used as a punishment.
Newtype-001
Member
Yes, i wanna now if a game is worth my money now not 6months ago. If it got better or worse update your review. Most review sites wont bother though its just extra work on their part i guess.
Glad they didn't listen to you.
TimeEffect
Member
So what do you propose? For reviewers be held accountable for their past reviews, and encourage them to review older games to update reviews based on free content? DLC? Updates?
What about people who don't have, or can't afford massive GBs of downloading updates? If scores should be updated to reflect the consumer's interest, what do we make of consumers who play offline?
thelastcrusader
Banned
This is my logic. This especially applies to MMOs. Technically a Realm Reborn was a patch...
GoldenCrow
Member
Gaming media should just review it how they see fit, nevertheless there is a big disparity by how games are being released and evolving over time and the way reviews are conducted. Driveclub isn't the first game to release in one state and a year later have so much added or amended and it wont be the last and is more par for the course rather than a one off. If the gaming media view their reviews as giving customers the most accurate information on a game then there is obviously a disparity but if they view it as a soapbox then it is pretty much doing that.
paragonpro
Banned
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.
BradleyLove
Member
Eh?
If it's a hot mess at launch, reviews poorly then it's less likely to sell. If it's then reviewed 10 months later, re-reviews well and sells well, isn't it kinda obvious that release then fix is a bad thing?
Games are no longer static items; they evolve and so should reviews. Reading an out of date review does no one favours, be that titles that improve or get worse.
>-Baron-Spamedi-<
Member
That's a whole lot of strawmen, isn't it?
CrispyGoomba
Member
Yo, I'm conflicted. At first I was like, they shouldn't re-review it again, what's the point. But I thought about it and, in this games case, it has received many free updates and whatnot. Why shouldn't people be able to re-review it? It doesn't make sense to me anymore.
Yeah, they released a poor game at launch but now the game has more content. It's not the same thing like re-reviewing a 20 year old game like Super Mario 64. This game came out about 9 months ago.
Yeah, they released a poor game at launch but now the game has more content. It's not the same thing like re-reviewing a 20 year old game like Super Mario 64. This game came out about 9 months ago.
Biggest sales are done when the games are released and many do not have long legs.
It is reasonable to review a game again if it has changed significantly. But patches and add-ons change the initial releases so much in some cases. It does not apply to all games. Never should.
The broken messes should be reviewed as is when they are available so that people do not buy that shit. Nothing will change the current practices of game companies releasing broken things. Some of them do not care enough and fix shit when they are petitioned and requested over and over again.
I for one did not buy Driveclub even though I was interested earlier. It wasn't up to par. Evolution has shown some balls by updating the game a lot and making it work it seems, so I give them the benefit of the doubt, now. Will test the PS+ edition and decide then if I want to buy it.
why? you don't agree it was a fucked up release?
TimeEffect
Member
That visibility for support does come from social media buzz, word of mouth, and other ways of advertisement.
I didn't need to see an updated review score to see that Driveclub had lots of updates, because the community positively reflected that, and I'm sure I saw an article or two about the content update.
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. Or am I mistaking how bad/long the server issues lasted?
I would think it would be more critical to have the score changed back then, than now, though I am open to changing scores both times. I just don't realistically see reviewers putting up with chasing a game's progress like that.
autoduelist
Member
Why? If it's no longer relevant, it's no longer relevant.
Reviews should be updated/changed if necessary.
Look a the review from GamingAge
This is longer correct and has not been correct for awhile now.
http://www.gaming-age.com/2014/10/driveclub-review-ps4/
This is longer correct and has not been correct for awhile now.
I think publications should update reviews when games undergo major changes. They don't have to, but they should. But I don't want them to REPLACE the current text. Just update the score and add some text explaining it.
People who play offline, however absolutely miniscule that amount is of the current gen owners, can see the original text. But realistically, reviews aren't for them nowadays, since they often reflect games with day one patches.
Freedom = $1.05
Banned
Well, I agree to an extent. If you're going to do a review in the modern era then you should mention the date of the review and the build reviewed.
If done this way, the customer at least knows what version of the game was reviewed and when. Now, to convince a typical editorial staff to continuously review a game as it updates seems like a tall order for most places with games being release now more than ever before. But I'm not sure what the best solution is outside of reviewing what's in the box.
This is where Apple has most places beat. Their user reviews are on a build basis, so your review is only attributes to the build you played. So there is some degree of what you're asking for built into their review system.
This. I can understand an article revisiting the game a few months later, but a review should be based on what you get on release date.
stan423321
Member
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.
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.
WrenchNinja
Member
I don't think it is at all. If someone is persuaded by the critical consensus to avoid the game, then too bad. Maybe Sony shouldn't have put out the game in that state. It's not a reviewer's job to keep track of all the fixes that have been made with the game. It's not as though Driveclub is the only multiplayer game ever made or an MMO that evolves rapidly.
People aren't stuck with just looking at critic reviews, they can easily google Driveclub's current reception and go be persuaded or dissuaded by fans.