Support NeoGAF

[Raist]

I think a review should primarily inform you about the many aspects of the game that may or may not influence your purchase - content, graphics, whether multiplayer is solid etc etc. In this case, it is absolutely reasonable to expect an update, because what was published back then does not reflect at all what the game is like now. i.e this is spot on:

our original review no longer reflected its quality

On the other hand, after such a long time after launch I don't think it's really going to matter anyway.

 

[Hugstable]

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.

Oh nice! Yeah I never really had a problem with it and it just caused me to drive a hell of a lot safer (which actually caused me to do better anyway in the multicar races lol) Did they change how the speed limiter works sometimes when you get a penalty? That's the one thing that always used to kill me in some races :-/.

 

[m@cross]

The developer made a mistake, they don't deserve to make up for it, they obviously are a-holes undeserving of forgiveness for obviously intentional errors in their design

Also gamers should not be made aware the game could be enjoyable for them now either. It might tempt them to make a purchase they will be happy with; it will reward the bad designers and their insidious attempt at selling a knowingly broken game.

Also moving forward, all games should be reviewed ONLY as shipped and not with any day one or later patches, and add-on content should never be written about good or bad.

 

[NullPointer]

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

 

[SirMossyBloke]

That's sad

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

I was born in 1977. School isn't easier now, it's just you didn't know that you can retake tests, which is frankly quite weird.

 

[nib95]

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.

Certain games such as Forza 5 don't even function properly without their day one patches, so if you go by that rule, some games are essentially broken.

 

[Toki767]

I didn't see people complaining about Diablo 3 getting reviewed again with Reaper of Souls or Final Fantasy XIV with A Realm Reborn and those weren't even free updates.

 

[Elandyll]

Imo websites willing to re-review games should keep the old score, labelled "Then", and have the new one labelled "Now", clearly specifying that the new score is dependent upon online patching and access to digital content.

This way someone buying a game and playing strictly offline will know what to expect.(Obviously in the case of games with physical copies on the market, like DC)

 

[platocplx]

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.

This is exactly how it should be especially since games now are heavily supported after release. Yes. Shit happened but now look at what it is now. All of it should be documented.

 

[Synth]

Certain games such as Forza 5 don't even function properly without their day one patches, so if you go by that rule, some games are essentially broken.

I actually edited that in a few moments later.

I would be interested to know what exactly is missing from FM5 when not patched actually... does anyone know? The game doesn't really have any real completion of progression... so if it's simply a case of some of the event classes missing, I don't think that would actually count as the game not functioning properly.

 

[Ivan Amiibo]

Yeah, why not? Someone who isn't on that day 0 hype cycle like a lot of the suckers on this forum might check reviews 6 months+ later and find wrong reviews everywhere.

This doesn't enable devs to release shit games. Buying it day 1 does. Hyping it up from the very first mention of the title existing does. Shitting up every thread about the game on the internet with blind hype (under the pretense of "positivity" and "optimism") does. Jerking off positive previews and downplaying negative previews as much as possible does.

Reconsidering a game several months after it launches and after it has had massive amounts of support (massive support it needed because of people blind buying shit on day 1 because they saw a cool gif of a game and got drawn in to the circlejerk vortex and because they are massive tools) is not bad in any way. It's honest and ensures the review continues to help people make the decision rather than being a wasted space on the site that makes the review site look like assholes because it's all outdated info.

You will never even notice and are probably already in the process of getting hyped up by that hot new game collector's edition with the bad ass statue that looks so good in pics...which is gonna arrive with a shitty paint job.

 

[Omerta]

Reviews are not art, they are a tool for consumers to decide whether they want to buy games or not.

Many have forgotten this.

Times have changed. Games are dynamic, they change (often considerably) from launch onwards.

I can not think of a single reason why we wouldn't want outlets to revisit reviews.

 

[NullPointer]

This doesn't enable devs to release shit games, buying it day 1 does.

Good point.

 

[erawsd]

I didn't see people complaining about Diablo 3 getting reviewed again with Reaper of Souls or Final Fantasy XIV with A Realm Reborn and those weren't even free updates.

Those are different circumstances.

Reaper of Souls was an expansion, not a re-release of Diablo 3. Unless you are talking about The Ultimate Evil edition that was released on consoles, which made sense because that was a new release on those platforms. FFXIV could have been called FFXV, it was a total reboot of that entire thing. A few bits of lore and some art assets are all that remain.

 

[SirMossyBloke]

Reviews are not art, they are a tool for consumers to decide whether they want to buy games or not.

Many have forgotten this.

Times have changed. Games are dynamic, they change (often considerably) from launch onwards.

I can not think of a single reason why we wouldn't want outlets to revisit reviews.

Exactly.

Some people seem almost offended at the idea that they would revisit a game to showcase improvements.

 

[Hugstable]

I didn't see people complaining about Diablo 3 getting reviewed again with Reaper of Souls or Final Fantasy XIV with A Realm Reborn and those weren't even free updates.

LOL FFXIV isn't even comparable, it's a completely new game. I get reviewing Diablo 3 as a whole again on PC, but it was also a first release as UEE on Consoles, in that case they just review the New expansion for PC, full game for consoles (I'm pretty sure that's how most did it). Neither of those make a very good example

 

[RootCause]

Naw, you review what's in the box.

This, a million times. If you don't want it reviewed, then release it at a later time.

 

[BumRush]

Games should have a review when they come out and a 1 year or post dlc review. Some games like drive club deserve to be re-reviewed so more people pick it up.

 

[Kathian]

Sites can't afford to rereview with every update. Release finished games.

 

[OmegaDL50]

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.

 

[SirMossyBloke]

This, a million times. If you don't want it reviewed, then release it at a later time.

Explain how you review a game like Warframe then.

 

[Khayam]

This, a million times. If you don't want it reviewed, then release it at a later time.

NO ! Reviews are for the consumers who needs to know whether to buy or not, not to test the devs skills.

 

[nib95]

Oh nice! Yeah I never really had a problem with it and it just caused me to drive a hell of a lot safer (which actually caused me to do better anyway in the multicar races lol) Did they change how the speed limiter works sometimes when you get a penalty? That's the one thing that always used to kill me in some races :-/.

You just end up getting less slow down speed limiters basically. Allows you to drive a bit more aggressively, and rack up slightly more fame than before.

 

[DeepEnigma]

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

Now don't you put a wrench of logic into someones fixed mindset narrative. Shame on you, sir.

Spoiler

 

[zashga]

Sure, you can re-review a game. I don't think reviewers are in any way obligated to do so, or that anyone particularly cares if they do. You get one launch, one window where people will check out your new game. You give them something like the original Driveclub release, you blew it. Getting anyone to give your game a second look is exponentially harder.

 

[watership]

Slippery slope. Games shouldn't be released broken, or incomplete. Why buy them at launch at all. Saying it's okay to rereview games to give them a second chance invites non complete and broken games, because then there is the expectations that you should "just wait, it will get better."

 

[Toki767]

Those are different circumstances.

Reaper of Souls was an expansion, not a re-release of Diablo 3. Unless you are talking about The Ultimate Evil edition that was released on consoles, which made sense because that was a new release on those platforms. FFXIV could have been called FFXV, it was a total reboot of that entire thing. A few bits of lore and some art assets are all that remain.

LOL FFXIV isn't even comparable, it's a completely new game. I get reviewing Diablo 3 as a whole again on PC, but it was also a first release as UEE on Consoles, in that case they just review the New expansion for PC, full game for consoles (I'm pretty sure that's how most did it). Neither of those make a very good example

So you guys are saying if they just renamed this to something different or added a subtitle then it would be ok?

 

[diamount]

No clicks for old games.

 

[Maximo]

Yeah I don't see a problem with reviewing games again, if the game is shit hit it hard like it deserves then come back to it if the game improves. Hell there are games that have gotten worse as time goes by and I think those should be reviewed again as well.
Feels like some people are putting too much emotion in some of their responses wanting to permently brand some games because of their experience or a certain publisher, if a game improves why shouldn't it be looked at again?

 

[matrixman92]

I was born in 1977. School isn't easier now, it's just you didn't know that you can retake tests, which is frankly quite weird.

Nah, you will probably think I'm lying. But my mom is a math teacher. I just asked her and this entire district voted against it

Which is a good thing imo. Not sure why people are so against kids failing. Always have to make them feel special

 

[Synth]

Slippery slope. Games shouldn't be released broken, or incomplete. Why buy them at launch at all. Saying it's okay to rereview games to give them a second chance invites non complete and broken games, because then there is the expectations that you should "just wait, it will get better."

To be fair "just wait it'll get better" is a fucking nightmare scenario for a developer/publisher unless they actually are going to make it better.

 

[RoadHazard]

Nope. You review what's there at release. Sure, you can go back to it later and say "it's better now", but if the game is shit at release it deserves a shit score.

 

[MoonsaultSlayer]

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).



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.

And my reply would be make this industry wide where applicable.

Nope. You review what's there at release. Sure, you can go back to it later and say "it's better now", but if the game is shit at release it deserves a shit score.

Games journalism be a bit better if they covered games after release as opposed to solely being hype machines and score producers.

 

[alatif113]

Slippery slope. Games shouldn't be released broken, or incomplete. Why buy them at launch at all. Saying it's okay to rereview games to give them a second chance invites non complete and broken games, because then there is the expectations that you should "just wait, it will get better."

This is flawed logic. If you sell a broken game at the time that it is broken it should and would receive reviews stating such. There is no incentive for pubs to release incomplete games here.

 

[SirMossyBloke]

Nah, you will probably think I'm lying. But my mom is a math teacher. I just asked her and this entire district voted against it

Which is a good thing imo. Not sure why people are so against kids failing. Always have to make them feel special

Well then that district has an issue with second chances I guess.

 

[system11]

I hope this doesn't happen more often, it will just enable the 'release now, fix later' culture.

 

[erawsd]

So you guys are saying if they just renamed this to something different or added a subtitle then it would be ok?

No, Im not saying that at all and none of the games I mentioned did that either, so I dont know what point you are trying to make.

 

[DOWN]

The idea that a company could fix their issues like people ask and then get no one buying what they said needed to be fixed sounds sucky. I don't like the idea that if I want a game that is great now but wasn't at launch, I have no way of knowing what a must-have it has become and could miss out on.

 

[Synth]

And my reply would be make this industry wide where applicable.

Yea, it;d also be mine if it weren't so unrealistic.

Games are getting shit reviews already due to the reviewers time being stretched too fin, causing them to rush through. Add re-reviews in industry wide, and it all goes completely to shit. The re-reviews would probably just be formulated by reading GAF for a bit, rather than even bothering to replay it again.

 

[Frillen]

Have your shit ready at launch.

So no! Good lord.

 

[Uthred]

Slippery slope. Games shouldn't be released broken, or incomplete. Why buy them at launch at all. Saying it's okay to rereview games to give them a second chance invites non complete and broken games, because then there is the expectations that you should "just wait, it will get better."

Why do people keep making this same ridiculous argument? Do they simply not understand what a review is? A review is not a judgement, its a tool for the consumer. Having a review of the game when its broken with an attached or addended update covering its current state in no way invites developers to release incomplete or broken games (the idea that it would seems like outre scaremongering). Also, why are you assuming that an updated review will always be positive? An updated review could also be negative, the point is that positive or negative it would at least be accurate (the key selling point of a review)

Also, if you attach so much value to reviews that they entirely decide your purchasing decisions then waiting to see if it gets better would be sage advice.

I hope this doesn't happen more often, it will just enable the 'release now, fix later' culture.

How? Seriously, outline your argument because I fail to see it. If it releases broke then it gets a review saying its broke. If its fixed later than the review gets an addendum outlining the significant change to the game i.e. it is now working. It doesnt "enable" anything. It is in fact arguably a disincentive to release broken games. Publishers value day one sales, if I can look at an addended review and see this publisher has a habit of releasing a broken game but fixing it later then that gives me as a consumer an incentive not to buy day one, to buy it later when its fixed, in turn this gives the publisher an incentive to release working games day one to court consumers like me.

 

[Despera]

Imo websites willing to re-review games should keep the old score, labelled "Then", and have the new one labelled "Now", clearly specifying that the new score is dependent upon online patching and access to digital content.

This way someone buying a game and playing strictly offline will know what to expect.

The best and most practical solution imo.

Once a game reaches a point where it is no longer broken or has delivered on its initial promises, a one-time review update would suffice. That way we can avoid clutter while setting a realistic limit to the number of potential review updates.

 

[Toki767]

No, Im not saying that at all and none of the games I mentioned did that either, so I dont know what point you are trying to make.

I get the concern that people are afraid more games will ship broken with the promise of fixing them later, but a lot of things outside of video games get updated reviews.

Electronics get their reviews updated after software updates.
Restaurants get reviews updated after multiple visits.
TV shows, movies, books, etc... all get reviews at different times. Not just when they originally come out.

 

[Xyrmellon]

 

[DeepEnigma]

Why are people so fixated on the broken/buggy aspect for reviews in order to dismiss this?

Get out of the box and expand your mind like gaming has.

Negative reviews could also take into account content/game-play/story. It could lack content/story that one expects from a game [see: Destiny], but plays remarkably good, if not some of the best game-play in it's genre [seeestiny].

Most of Destiny's negative reviews were not because it was buggy/broken, or bad game-play, it was the lack of content/story for a narrative driven experience.

So once the game has more content (which can include polishing the story) that would make it more deserving of a better review. So then a responsible Consumer Awareness site (sites that review games) should amend it to reflect that for the consumers.

Vanilla Destiny is not the same game it is today or will be this September. So new buyers should have access to this in said reviews.

The original reviews didn't take the bad launch into account, some still get confused about it thoufh

For Driveclub, exactly.

 

[NullPointer]

In general, did outlets re-review vanilla Destiny when the raid (Vault of Glass) came out? Or did they just hold off on giving a score beforehand? Or just provide a score for the game without it?

A few podcasts ago Jeff took some time to revisit Warframe for shits and giggles brought up how much it had changed. Not quite a re-review certainly, but he found it interesting enough to check in on and share his findings. He did the same with DriveClub post-weather patch.

No score changes, but follow-ups all the same. I appreciated it anyway.

So I guess I'll rest with this: If there's an audience there, and reviewers have the interest and bandwidth for it, it'd be nice to consider an addendum to some reviews for games that have changed since launch. Eventually we're going to end up with some kind of system in place as more games go the service/platform route.

 

[Hugstable]

Why are people so fixated on the broken/buggy aspect for reviews in order to dismiss this?

Get out of the box and expand your mind like gaming has.

Negative reviews could also take into account content/game-play/story. It could lack content/story that one expects from a game [see: Destiny], but plays remarkably good, if not some of the best game-play in it's genre [seeestiny].

Most of Destiny's negative reviews were not because it was buggy/broken, or bad game-play, it was the lack of content/story for a narrative driven experience.

So once the game has more content (which can include polishing the story) which would make it more deserving of a better review, then a responsible Consumer Awareness site (sites that review games) should amend it to reflect that for the consumers.

Vanilla Destiny is not the same game it is today or will be this September. So new buyers should have access to this in said reviews.

The original reviews didn't take the bad launch into account, some still get confused about it thoufh

In general, did outlets re-review vanilla Destiny when the raid (Vault of Glass) came out? Or did they just hold off on giving a score beforehand? Or just provide a score for the game without it?


.

Games like Destiny and Splatoon seem a bit different than the usual game since they launched content not too short after release, but it was still stuff not shipped at launch. For those cases, I've always said that you review the mechanics that are there and the content available, but also take into account future content that is already planned (if developers have made it known what content you are getting very soon). I still believe the same there though, update if you want, but even then the core mechanics haven't completely changed, as it's just added content. I don't know, but I seem fine with updates to reviews as a whole, but something about changing the review score itself just bugs me. I feel they should focus on the information of the review and update that. But even then with my own thinking, it's like where do they draw the line on what to do rereview and not. Blah my mind jumps around too much on this topic -___-

The Master Chief Collection is still sitting at an 85 on Metacritic. I don't exactly think sites bothered updating their reviews for that after launch even though they should have.

See that's the thing that bugs me about rereview changing scores. One game does it and now everyone expects score changes and not information updates on any random title. This should be about information, not scores

 

[Synth]

Vanilla Destiny is not the same game it is today or will be this September. So new buyers should have access to this in said reviews.

Actually arguing this same point in the Warframe DLC thread. Vanilla Destiny isn't better than it was. It's worse due to vanilla players frequently being locked out of the daily.weekly activities that the game's extended play is designed around. $100 Destiny is better... but that's almost double the price.

 

[brotkasten]

Games should not be re-reviewed and have their scores changed. If a publisher is trying to sell a broken game for the full price at launch, that should be reflected in the review and score. They know about the state of the game and know they're screwing the customer over. If a game receives a late patch that fixes the game and delivers features that were promised before launch, it should be noted with a note and follow-up in the review ("Update 1: 06/26/2015"). But that should not affect the score at all, because after all, it was more important for the publisher to put the game out in that state and collect as many day one purchases as possible, than to delay the game.

 

[TheAdmiester]

Nope, review what it comes with.