Support NeoGAF

[DeepEnigma]

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.

 

[Uthred]

And who decides what games warrant a rereview and which ones don't?

It's almost like I addressed that in the text you quoted, maybe I used a phrase like "The reviewer or the outlet can decide where to draw the line on a game by game basis." Hey, maybe it could work like the current process where they decided which games warrant a review and which ones dont?

 

[Wensih]

A game shouldn't be released in its infant stage then.

More like "why did I get a 0 on this math test. Give me a few months to get these answers right and let me turn it back in"

The problem with this analogy is that a review isn't primarily to assess the developer's ability but to inform the consumer on a product. Reviews are not tests.

 

[Synth]

No-ones saying it should be forced, but there's nothing wrong in doing it if it's improved.

Well, they're free to do as they like obviously... but like I said though, if you're re-reviewing Driveclub, why not other games that are significantly changed since release?

I think major title updates should definitely be given coverage in the form of news updates etc... I just don't think that should extend to the review. It would apply to far more games than many in support of it are likely acknowledging.. and I'd rather all games get reviewed under the same general conditions (which funnily enough was one of the things many Driveclubs fans initally argued the game didn't receive when it scored in a way they disagreed with).

For the folks saying no, why can't games evolve? Say none of the cock-ups happened but the game still continued to get better and better. Wouldn't you as a consumer be interested in knowing that game X for 60 dollars is now twice as good at half the price with tons of developer support? As a developer, wouldn't you want that known and reflected in a new score? Or should they have re-packaged it in some game of the year edition like everyone else?

Games can, and do evolve... however the problem is that Driveclub is far less unique for this than people think. So the question then become, how much does it need to change to qualify for a re-review? Killer Instinct has it's scores lowered almost universally at launch for only having 6 characters. Now it has 17. Re-review? Titanfall has lots of added content, and entirely new modes, and they even tried the mode everyone complained for (pilots only) before realising it sucks. Re-review? Destiny has basically fucked over anyone that didn't buy the DLC. Re-review? etc.

 

[Servbot24]

Everyone should review what they want when they want if they want. Don't try to make pointless rules just to fuel your childish sense of #gamerjustice.

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

It's almost like I addressed that in the text you quoted, maybe I used a phrase like "The reviewer or the outlet can decide where to draw the line on a game by game basis." Hey, maybe it could work like the current process where they decided which games warrant a review and which ones dont?

And what would that line be?

What I'm getting at is that there's no easy way to make that determination. The most sensible way is to not make it at all.

 

[akachan ningen]

Shouldn't people who are considering buying the game NOW be able to read a review that reflects what the game is like NOW rather than what it was like a year ago?

 

[NullPointer]

Everyone should review what they want when they want if they want. Don't try to make pointless rules just to fuel your childish sense of #gamerjustice.

Its not pointless or childish to recognize that some games are evolving products. Some far more than others but its a trend we'll only see more of over time.

You used to have the same game at release as you had one year later. That's no longer the case.

 

[AstroNut325]

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.

Agree with this word for word. But I do wish more games are released without day 1 patches.

 

[nib95]

Well, they're free to do as they like obviously... but like I said though, if you're re-reviewing Driveclub, why not other games that are significantly changed since release?

I don't think anyone is arguing that Driveclub should exclusively share this privilege. If other games have been fundamentally updated and changed, there's no reason why they can't be re-reviewed either, but that is to the discretion of the reviewer or outlet. GamesRadar obviously felt Driveclub has changed enough to warrant a re-review, maybe they just don't feel other games have seen as much of an update to warrant re-reviews? Or maybe they have, who knows. I don't follow the site very closely, to know if they have re-reviewed other games or not.

 

[Hugstable]

Shouldn't people who are considering buying the game NOW be able to read a review that reflects what the game is like NOW rather than what it was like a year ago?

What is different since then a year ago though? I love Driveclub but is Weather and DLC really change a game completely so much that it invalidates reviews from a year ago?

 

[blacklotus]

I see no problem with this.
However, gaming sites and mags should keep the original review up as well.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

And what would that line be?

What I'm getting at is that there's no easy way to make that determination. The most sensible way is to not make it at all.

Not really. You're essentially saying "They probably couldn't re-review every game that deserves it, so it would be better if they didn't re-review anything and at least help some people out with updated reviews."

Which makes zero sense. That would be like me seeing a homeless person on the street and saying "You know, I could give him money, but I can't give EVERY homeless person money, so I should probably not help this guy or any other homeless person I see."

 

[Bluth54]

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.

If there is enough free content added to the game why not re-review?

Look at Team Fortress 2. In 2007 it shipped with 6 maps, a 4 game modes and a single set of weapons for each class.

Today the game is at around 500 patches, including dozens of major content updates that add brand new content to the game for free. Over 50 maps have been added to the game, over 100 weapons, several new game modes including a co-op hoard mode, cosmetic items with an in game economy and the game has become Free to Play. A review of Team Fortress 2 from 2007 is going to be horribly out of date and just not relevant to what's included in the game anymore.

 

[DirgeExtinction]

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.

Uh, no it doesn't. If more and more games start being "released as a broken mess", less people will feel inclined to buy it at release. They'll think, "Well, I might as well wait until it works without [major] hiccups." Releasing buggy games, then later patching them will not work in the favor of developers, no matter what people think. Games like DC and examples of this. Quite a few people bought them, but negative word of mouth(and average reviews for DC) caused people to sit and wait until they get fixed, causing lost sales for both teams.

Also, it's not like games are relaxed with tons of bugs or issues because the developers WANT to, sometimes shit happens.


I, for one, don't think it's necessary for games to be re-reviewed after latches, but it would certainly help consumers if a game is drastically improved over time.

 

[matrixman92]

Not sure where you live, but retaking school tests has been a huge deal around here, to the level that various schools I've been in had very, very varying rules on how is it supposed to work (and when school didn't, the teachers did vary a lot). The high school institutions around here mostly have a separate exam retake session after every regular one. So yeah, this happens all the time... unless it doesn't.

That's sad

I wish I was in school now. Sounds easy as fuck

 

[ShogunX]

Everyone should review what they want when they want if they want. Don't try to make pointless rules just to fuel your childish sense of #gamerjustice.

Well fucking said.

 

[makingmusic476]

I'm generally in favor of reviewers rereviewing or evolving their reviews if they have the time.

What's the point of browsing reviews if they don't reflect the game you're considering buying?

 

[OnADock]

Why should reviews include DLC in reviews? If it isn't part of the base game, it shouldn't be part of the review. Make a DLC review if you want to cover that.

 

[Haunted]

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

I agree for certain games. Dota 2. League of Legends. Continually updated platforms, games as service.


Not a fixed-package, traditional racing game like Driveclub.

 

[DirgeExtinction]

I agree for certain games. Dota 2. League of Legends. Continually updated platforms, games as service.


Not a fixed-package, traditional racing game like Driveclub.

But that's what DC has become, a game as a service.

 

[viveks86]

Everyone should review what they want when they want if they want. Don't try to make pointless rules just to fuel your childish sense of #gamerjustice.

Could have been a flawless post with just the first sentence. Such a missed opportunity.

 

[Uthred]

And what would that line be?

What I'm getting at is that there's no easy way to make that determination. The most sensible way is to not make it at all.

Are you taking the piss?

Why? Semantics wont change the fact that it is a review (technically a re-review). Reviews of evolving media arent meant to be static cultural artifacts. They're meant to be an information source that provides an overview of the product as it stands not as it stood. A review that has been outdated by additional content and patches is useless as anything other than a historical curiosity.

They should do it for every game that has undergone a significant enough change they feel that its warranted. This isnt a binary proposition, its not "Oh they did 1 they have to do all of them no matter how minor the change". The reviewer or the outlet can decide where to draw the line on a game by game basis. What about the reverse, Why shouldnt they do it?

It's almost like I addressed that in the text you quoted, maybe I used a phrase like "The reviewer or the outlet can decide where to draw the line on a game by game basis." Hey, maybe it could work like the current process where they decided which games warrant a review and which ones dont?

What does the consumer care if there's no easy way to make that determination? The easiest way is not to do it all, its certainly not the most sensible way, definitely not from the consumers perspective. Reviewers and outlets choose which games to review, they can use the same or a slightly adjusted metric, to chose which games to re-review. If they are actually interested in being useful to the consumer and in maintaining the relevance of their review they will do that. If they arent, they wont. Videogames dont work the same way they did in the past, reviews need to change to maintain their relevance and utility. They've done the same in other evolving media, they should do the same here.

 

[Kriken]

I've said it before in past threads and my stance has not changed, outlets should make their own decisions on re-reviewing games. If they believe enough has changed from their original review, go for it. If they believe that they should stick by their "This is how the game shipped" review, go for it.

 

[Wensih]

I agree for certain games. Dota 2. League of Legends. Continually updated platforms, games as service.


Not a fixed-package, traditional racing game like Driveclub.

It's obviously not a fixed package if it is receiving patches, updates, and added content.

 

[NullPointer]

Not a fixed-package, traditional racing game like Driveclub.

DriveClub is not a fixed-package, and they've specifically announced that they intend to treat it as a service moving forward.

But again, DriveClub is just one example of a game that has changed after release. Other games make an even larger argument for considering updated reviews or addendums, like the ones you mentioned.

 

[Hugstable]

Is there anything substantially different in the game since the last reviews besides the Weather and the DLC stuff?

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

Not really. You're essentially saying "They probably couldn't re-review every game that deserves it, so it would be better if they didn't re-review anything and at least help some people out with updated reviews."

Which makes zero sense. That would be like me seeing a homeless person on the street and saying "You know, I could give him money, but I can't give EVERY homeless person money, so I should probably not help this guy or any other homeless person I see."

I'm going to ignore your terrible analogy

Like I said earlier, publishers and developers know exactly how reviews work. When drive club shipped, Sony and Evolution knew what that game was. They knew the risk involved in sending it out as it was and were fine with it. If they wanted to keep supporting the game after its launch then that's just a thing they thought would be good. Reviewers shouldn't feel beholden to a game's attempt to stop copies from being sold or traded. Or to keep putting content out for whatever other reasons.

Splatoon got a bunch of shit from reviewers at launch for being thin and, in that case, reviewers knew there was more content coming. Should they have held off their review as well? Should they be continuously updating their reviews as the slow drip of content trickles out?

I say no, but if they want to try the weird tightrope that is continuously updating their reviews then that's their call.

 

[wig]

I don't think redoing reviews should be a requirement. If a reviewer does it's cool but they shouldn't feel obligated to.

 

[nib95]

What is different since then a year ago though? I love Driveclub but is Weather and DLC really change a game completely so much that it invalidates reviews from a year ago?

Dynamic weather (rain, snow, lightning), photo mode, completely new modes, e.g. online dynamic time trials, re-worked drifting and events, improved challenges, new free Tours and events, tonnes of free cars, new tracks, including an entirely new location, lots of new settings (HUD, audio, wipers etc), replays, tweaked gameplay mechanics (fame, points, rules, penalties, slip streaming) and so on and so on.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Any other media receives updated or fresh reviews when new editions of a work come up, be it a director's cut of a film or a new edition of a book with new text.

Games are a bit different since they can be updated live, with small changes or major ones, without requiring the release of a formal "special edition". But the upshot is that they can still change significantly.

I think as time goes on, it's going to seem increasingly sensible to revisit games when so many of them are not a static product. A lot of games are a living ecosystem that can change as the developer alters the game based on player feedback.

 

[RedAssedApe]

re-review is fine as long as the originals are kept up. although iirc metacritic doesn't update scores after the initial review so it doesn't really matter if people care about that.

 

[manfestival]

i dont think re reviewing should be required but its certainly worth checking out for informational purposes. Speaks more for the after effort but the abysmal release should always be shunned

 

[Arion]

Any game that has seen many updates and changes for no additional cost deserve to be re-reviewed. I don't know how Driveclub has been doing but other games like League of Legends and Team Fortress 2 are hugely different games from when they were released. If you consider the sole purpose of a review to give people buyers advice then it only makes sense to update your reviews to be more accurate of the product as it currently stands. That way it is more helpful to folks who are thinking about buying a game in the present.

 

[Karak]

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





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?

I re-review quite often on my site and have for a couple years and I still don't consider it something everyone should do. If they want to sure, but its nothing more than many sites do when they revisit a game to see where it is a year or so later its just more in depth. Its the discretion of the company and in no way should be a normal or expected thing.

 

[Oersted]

Weather, photo mode, completely new online odes, dynamic time trials, re-worked drifting and events, new free Tours and events, tonnes of free cars, new tracks, an entirely new location, lots of new settings (HUD, audio, wipers etc), tweaked gameplay mechanics (fame, points, rules, penalties, slip streaming) and so on and so on.

Reviews took such support into consideration.

 

[Figboy79]

If the reviewer wants to re-review a title after it's undergone some significant changes, why not? Hell, if a reviewer wants to re-review a title just cuz, I'm fine with it.

Then again, reviews don't mean much to me in general, but in the case of modern gaming, I think reviews should adapt to the times. We are no longer in an era where video games (in particular console games), are a static product that, once it's released on store shelves, that is the permanent representation of that project for the duration of its life. We are in a gaming era in which developers can update and improve (or ruin, in some cases), their games with updates and patches, and how the industry treats those games should be taken into consideration going forward.

I haven't played Driveclub yet, but people have said it's improved significantly, then I don't see a problem with it. It's NOT the same game you bought on launch day. That's not something to dismiss because it "wasn't in the box" on release.

 

[OccamsLightsaber]

Is there anything substantially different in the game since the last reviews besides the Weather and the DLC stuff?

Photo mode, replays, more settings (audio and visual, no gameplay), more docile AI, reduced "off track" notifications, challenges, the leaderboards are actually populated with competitive times.

 

[nib95]

Reviews took such support into consideration.

No they didn't, and how could they. Nobody knew that they would add or improve so much, with the exception of weather. We knew it was coming, we just had no idea how well it would be implemented. In the case of Driveclub, it has been better implemented than any other racing game currently on the market.

 

[Kriken]

i dont think re reviewing should be required but its certainly worth checking out for informational purposes. Speaks more for the after effort but the abysmal release should always be shunned

In this day and age, does anyone really go to reviews for informational purposes for games that have been out for as long as Driveclub has? At this point, I'm sure there are thousands of impressions and LPs for a consumer to make an informed decision. Nothing against your statement, but I also have my doubts a re-review would have as much of an impact as say a 2-month old LP of this game

 

[Hugstable]

Weather, photo mode, completely new modes, e.g. online dynamic time trials, re-worked drifting and events, improved challenges, new free Tours and events, tonnes of free cars, new tracks, including an entirely new location, lots of new settings (HUD, audio, wipers etc), replays, tweaked gameplay mechanics (fame, points, rules, penalties, slip streaming) and so on and so on.

Thanks, need to check out the new penalty changes and season pass stuff sometime, haven't touched the game since Redline expansion so i could save all the dlc so i could play alot at once. Seeming like a good time soon ha

 

[OmegaDL50]

If I wanted to know about the game right this very second, the reviews would be very misleading.

And that is the crux of the situation isn't it.

The Driveclub released as is of today even not factoring the paid add-ons, IS NOT representative of the Driveclub that released back in October of 2014.

Reviews are a guide of what the buyer should expect from the product. With something that constantly evolves and is improved overtime the writing for an initial review may very well prove inaccurate or even become outright false due to this.

 

[jwk94]

Naw, you review what's in the box.

thats what they did...

 

[Raonak]

Games can now be significantly different than they are at launch, whether that be through patches, or DLC (free or otherwise). games like LoL or DOTA and Episodic games especially have a weird place in the current review system.

Who looks at reviews? people wanting to know if the game is worth buying at the current time, so they aren't really given the full story when you're reading a year old review.

But it's pretty unfesible for most places to re-review games, they gotta get hits, and re-reviewing old games isn't gonna generate them.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

I'm going to ignore your terrible analogy

Like I said earlier, publishers and developers know exactly how reviews work. When drive club shipped, Sony and Evolution knew what that game was. They knew the risk involved in sending it out as it was and was fine with it. If they wanted to keep supporting the game after its launch then that's just a thing they thought would be good. Reviewers shouldn't feel beholden to a game's attempt to stop copies from being sold or traded.

Splatoon got a bunch of shit from reviewers at launch for being thin and, in that case, reviewers knew there was more content coming. Should they have held off their review as well? Should they be continuously updating their reviews and the slow drip of content trickles out?

I say no.

It's not a terrible analogy. An analogy doesn't need to be a 1/1 comparison of something. Your basic idea was that a website shouldn't do something unless they can do it for every piece of content that deserves it. My analogy drew upon that similarity by talking about how I shouldn't help some homeless people because I don't have the money to help all homeless people. It's the exact same concept, brought into a different situation. That's what an analogy is for.

As for the bolded, I say yes, because as much as you think reviews should be about punishing/praising developers/publishers, that's not what they're for. They're for helping consumers decide if they should buy something or not. They shouldn't update the review to help the company who made the game, because as I pointed out before, that's not what reviews are for. They should be doing it (If they're reasonably able to based on their company size) because the purpose of a review is to inform a consumer about a product, and updating a review for a product that itself has frequent updates would be EXTREMELY beneficial in making the review serve it's purpose. Otherwise said review becomes outdated and no longer does it's job.

You can keep pulling in the angle about how we shouldn't be helping companies that release broken games, but frankly, all that does is continuiously reinforce the fact that you have no idea what the purpose of a review is in the first place. And instead want to use them as some kind of weird vengeful punishment.

 

[Concept17]

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.

I agree with this post. People use reviews to determine whether they want to buy it or not. Driveclub now is a vastly better game and is worth picking up. Easily one of this gens best games.

 

[nib95]

Thanks, need to check out the new penalty changes and season pass stuff sometime, haven't touched the game since Redline expansion so i could save all the dlc so i could play alot at once. Seeming like a good time soon ha

Penalty system is far more forgiving now. Game doesn't really dock you of points/fame as much, unless you're really aggressive with impact on the AI, or go off course in an obviously unfair and beneficial way. At launch the penalty system was a bit too strict, though I didn't personally mind it.

 

[Portugeezer]

I think it's good to update reviews/review again if warranted and/or if reviewers care enough.

It's only a good thing, people just like to be anal sometimes. No, this doesn't fucking mean developers get a free pass for releasing a broken game, by all means, give an honest review if the game is not working as expected at launch. But by this time it is no longer an accurate review for potential new buyers, so old reviews are worthless to these buyers.

I understand, with the release of PS+ edition of Driveclub it put it back into peoples minds so it's worth reviewing again.

 

[Synth]

thats what they did...

If you're referring to the updated review, that's not entirely true, as it requires GBs of patching. If some unfortunate soul has a PS4 that's permanently offline, they actually still get last year's Driveclub in the box.

Of course based on that... some games would be fucked at launch regardless.

 

[GodofWine]

Naw, you review what's in the box.

But if you buy it digitally there is no box and what you will get is not what was in the box...I'm confusing me now