• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Best way to go about reviewing games like Hitman and Street Fighter V?

O

Off-Kilter

Banned
That is to say, games that launch relatively bare bones but with planned updates meant to beef up the content. Do you dock points for the lack of day one content or do you take the planned updates into consideration? Do you revisit the review when the updates are out? Do you refrain from reviewing at all until the game is content complete? Curious to see where we all stand on this.
 
Both viewpoints, pre- and post-content, are needed because people will be buying the game then and now.

It would be good if sites like Metacritic took into account updated reviews, possibly as a separate score, so that first reviews aren't seen as a permanent mark on a game.
 
If it is not ready, then it is not ready. Dock points if they ship before it is, like what happened with Splatoon and Driveclub.
 
The game should be reviewed based on the quality and content it ships with. It doesn't get a free pass because of what is or isn't coming in the future.

Hitman is episodic that you can review that as it comes, or a full review when it's all out. But Ep1 or whatever its called should be reviewed on its quality etc.
 
There is a difference between hitman and SFV. SFV doesn't necessarily need too many SP content. MP alone can net 1000 hours if you are dedicated to get good at it, Hitman on the other hand needs new levels every few weeks to keep the game going. Hitman just doesn't have the gameplay /replay value when it comes to a FG like SFV. So SFV can be reviewed normally while hitman can be labled as incomplete and wait for finished product to review.
 
Review it as it is at launch and update the score accordingly I suppose. Not that it'll have any effect on the Metacritic total, which is what I'm sure publishers are mostly concerned about.
 
Off-Kilter said:
That is to say, games that launch relatively bare bones but with planned updates meant to beef up the content. Do you dock points for the lack of day one content or do you take the planned updates into consideration? Do you revisit the review when the updates are out? Do you refrain from reviewing at all until the game is content complete? Curious to see where we all stand on this.
Click to expand...


You pay $60 day one (for SFV), what do you get for that money? That's how you review it. If you include future content then you might aswell wait and save some money.
 
All reviewers can do is review the game they have. If the game is still alive and ticking (read: anyone still gives a shit) once all the content is out, then a reviewer can either update the old review or make a new one. Unfortunately, lower review scores for a smaller launch version of the game could affect metacritic which could affect if anyone gives a shit 6 months in.

This is probably why game pubs just give free copies of games to streamers - have them hype the games for you without attaching a score. If the game is good enough, the streamers will still be playing it throughout all the content being released.

Games as a service or releasing your game piecemeal only really works if people are willing to continue playing your game throughout the year - which there is an audience for that type of game. I'm just not sure that all these old, established franchises are the kinds of games that will keep people interested for longer than a few months.

Fighting games and mobas are the ones that have proven this model successful - let's see if traditional games can survive this way.
 
Hate re-reviews because if it becomes a norm, it gives developers even more leeway in releasing games broken or lacking features, knowing now that not only can they patch the game later but the review score can increase.
 
Many games are transitioning into that "Games as a service" division where they are delivering content post-launch for free. Games are harder and more expensive to make and it becomes hard to deliver the amount of content people expect out of these games.

Reviews should take this into account, and make the reader aware. This is why review scores are such an outdated measurement tool. As a reviewer, decide if it is
1. good
and
2. is there enough content at launch to justify the $60 price tag and if there isn't, tell the reader to wait until there is unless they are fine with the amount of content present
 
With the way metacritic works, it's not ideal for games that want to experiment with this release method.al sites can do is release updated reviews on how the game updates (as long as those are free, paid DLC reviewed separately)
 
James Scott said:
With the way metacritic works, it's not ideal for games that want to experiment with this release method.al sites can do is release updated reviews on how the game updates (as long as those are free, paid DLC reviewed separately)
Click to expand...

Then maybe... just maybe... we should stop putting too much stock into Metacritc scores.
 
Just like the countless other games that have been released and reviewed and have had content updates after. Content updates aren't anything new and those other games have never been reviewed again.
 
OCDChewie said:
I hate re-reviews

What if someone cans the game for not having a lot of content at launch?
Click to expand...
With the age we live in, re-reviews or evolving reviews are pretty much necessary. Anyone coming into games like Destiny, Splatoon and Driveclub are getting different packages than the launch crowd did. The initial reviews should definitely be preserved though.
 
Some of you are looking at re-reviews like ruining some sacred opinion on a game or 'giving publishers leeway to make bad games'. For someone buying the game a year later, they don't care what it was like when it was released or what the publisher is doing. They just want to know if it's a good game now, and what updates have occurred. I don't see how you can argue that a game shouldn't be re-reviewed. Practicality > Making a Statement.
 
Well, Hitman is just an episodic game like a TellTale title. People just review each release of those generally or the final product.

Service games in general have had hard clashes with how reviews work. It's not necessarily an easy thing to solve. How would you do a review of Netflix for example? Score it based on their mail delivery system from 1997? Give it annual reviews on whether or not it's worth subscribing to?
 
Maintenance said:
If it is not ready, then it is not ready. Dock points if they ship before it is, like what happened with Splatoon and Driveclub.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

gketter said:
Yes. But it the ends to be re reviewed. For games like that that change significantly you can't just take launch day evil 6-8 months for now
Click to expand...

Driveclub has been mentioned in the thread. I agree that the game is a lot better than it was at launch. The content on disc however hasn't changed since the game released. People still buy that disc and may never experience the updates if they're not connected to the internet.

People can review the updates and dlcs but the review of the main game shouldn't be changed just because there's optional content available.
 
People who are against re-reviews look at game reviews the wrong way. They equate it to almost a sport where developers are punished and rewarded based on how well their game scores. That is not what reviews should be about. Reviews are meant to inform consumers about a game they are about to buy. If that game 6 months later is entirely different then that game at launch, then it serves the potential consumer to know that and the original review no longer fulfills its purpose.
 
If it's not ready it's not ready. The game is going to be reviewed based on what you are paying for on that launch.

I don't want it to be common practise of games missing features with a promise they will be added later. Either have a cheaper price point or sort your development cycle out properly.

I assumed Street Fighter V as assumed service meant it will come as a complete package day 1. With added post content features and DLC.
 
Reviewing saas games(software as a service) should be reviewing the product in this case a game service, at the current state of the service.
 
They should be reviewed on what they shipped to the store day one, that people are picking up for 60 dollars.
If it isn't ready to be reviewed, it shouldn't have been released.
 
KAL2006 said:
If it's not ready it's not ready. The game is going to be reviewed based on what you are paying for on that launch.

I don't want it to be common practise of games missing features with a promise they will be added later. Either have a cheaper price point or sort your development cycle out properly.

I assumed Street Fighter V as assumed service meant it will come as a complete package day 1. With added post content features and DLC.
Click to expand...

Except that most of the content updates are free and six months down the line this is going to be a non-issue.

Archaix said:
Review the game as it is. If you want to update it later, fine, but you're under no obligation to do so.
Click to expand...
Then you get an outdated, inaccurate review.
 
You gotta serve the reader/customer. Do what is best for them. If a person is buying a game before the content is out, they need to know. If a person is buying a game after, they need to know that as well.
 
What is the focus of the game?

If gameplay then you need to review based in it gameplay.
If story then you need to review based in the SP content/story.

Or something like that... some mix of both.

In case of fighting games only gameplay matters... story is an extra.
 
Review of the current state of affairs and a promise to re-review as more content is released. I think it's fair that way.
 
Do what IGN did with Splatoon. Review the game as-is at launch, then revisit it later down the road when it gets more updates.
 
Maintenance said:
If it is not ready, then it is not ready. Dock points if they ship before it is, like what happened with Splatoon and Driveclub.
Click to expand...
So if they don't release it on the type of schedule you like they should lose points? Telltale gets away with it just fine, but you don't like it if a AAA tries to use the same benefits of the model to build content over time?
 
It's just like reviewing a tv show versus movie. Review each bit of content separately as its released in term of quality and value. Don't hold back thinking it will get gud by the 8th episode.

Metacritic should average all episode reviews for an overall game review.
 
DOWN said:
So if they don't release it on the type of schedule you like they should lose points? Telltale gets away with it just fine, but you don't like it if a AAA tries to use the same benefits of the model to build content over time?
Click to expand...
Telltale isn't charging you 60 bucks
 
Review the gameplay, outline the content(this is very important), do not give a score. That how I would do it.

I feel like they need to be more of a guidance for the consumer, and less of a verdict or grading type of thing with regards to these games as they're ever evolving. As long as they know what they are getting into.
 
DOWN said:
So if they don't release it on the type of schedule you like they should lose points? Telltale gets away with it just fine, but you don't like it if a AAA tries to use the same benefits of the model to build content over time?
Click to expand...

Let's go point by point.

First, Telltale games are not 60 dollars, and you can almost every time get them cheaper by the time the last episode arrives.

Second, it is not "type of schedule I like". If they are planning on releasing very crucial content 6 months down the line, then I will wait 6 months and pay less for the whole game. Those paying day 1 should know what they are getting, not empty promises.
 
Sakura said:
They should be reviewed on what they shipped to the store day one, that people are picking up for 60 dollars.
If it isn't ready to be reviewed, it shouldn't have been released.
Click to expand...
It's odd because in the case of Splatoon it was finished, they just held back some content to release it during the weeks after launch.
There was an entire game mode that required a lot of top level players which was locked until 2 days after launch. They also released an extra map and weapons in the first week so consumers got to play more than reviewers really quickly. But I guess it's a risk they were willing to take and helped retain fans and sales.
 
brawly said:
You pay $60 day one (for SFV), what do you get for that money? That's how you review it. If you include future content then you might aswell wait and save some money.
Click to expand...

this



You pay the full price day one, you review it as so. Destiny got rated correctly....just because the Raid wasn't out doesn't mean the reviewers were wrong. It was accurate for what content was there.

Hitman however you can play day one by only dropping $15.....so I would review it as though I am buying $15 worth of content....not $60.....unless you can't buy the other sections equally in $15 increments then yes....you might want to do the full $60 style review.
 
Not sure about reviews, but for people wanting to know if it's a game they should buy or if they would be interested, watch streams, or look for user feedback to decide if it's a good game or not.

Reviews, heh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Street Fighter 6 - Yasmine Gameplay Trailer
Trailer 
14
404
Gamer79 replied
Best way to sell retro games?
16
617
Trogdor1123 replied
Street Fighter | Official Trailer (2026 Movie)
2
75
1K
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt replied
[Top Hat Gaming Man] The Game Street Fighter Stole Everything From
7
437
MrA replied
STREET FIGHTER: The Evolution of Sound
Analysis Retro Trailer 
5
309
Roy_goodguy replied
Top Bottom