Support NeoGAF

[MoonsaultSlayer]

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.

The original score should be reflective of that and hopefully sales as well. In this reality, maybe reviewers will be more harsh and call a turd a turd and the developer can do what they can to fix it.

And this promotes post-release coverage which is also great. I don't like when coverage is only based on invited studio visits and provided footage.

 

[Toki767]

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 in the review. 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.

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.

 

[Uthred]

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 in the review. 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.

Because the key purpose of a review after all is to punish or reward the publisher in the public eye. If only there was a format for stuff like that, maybe call it an editorial, and leave reviews as relevant consumer information, oh well, a man can dream.

 

[DeepEnigma]

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.

That is a very good point as well. I did not think of that because I do not have just Vanilla.

So an amended review would touch on the pricing too. Since you do need $80-$100 to get the game that should have been at launch. It is still a far better game than Vanilla, however, at a cost.

 

[m@cross]

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."

No it doesn't. Games sell the most when they first launch. No game maker wants to have their game sell poorly at launch due to problems. No matter how much they fix it, it will never make up for the lost sales due to a bad product launching.

The consumer market is not all avid gamers like many of us. A game getting bad press at launch may very well be the ONLY time a larger portion of the casual market will consider the product. Making it perfect later will never fully draw back those lost sales.

A developer willing to fix a mistake should be given the credit for doing so. They never want this to happen, and not allowing them to let people know they made corrections just dissuades them form bothering to do so.

Bad press and initial sales is punishment enough for fucking up. Not updating the consumer on whether a game is indeed now worth a purchase hurts the consumer and the developers responsible enough for fixing their errors.

Review sites purpose is informing these consumers. If they can't afford to keep up, they are not performing their job adequately. Yah that sucks in this day and age of struggling sources of game news outlets, but it is what it is.

What if we held other news media to the same standards? Would it be acceptable for a news outlet to inform viewers that a car had a serious defect and then a period of time later not then inform them that the car defect was fixed and that car was now a great option for those viewers; the news didn't have the budget to report that update to the story?

Nearly every game has a day one patch now, almost every review includes that patch as a given in their first review. If someone can't get patches to games, hardly any review is accurate for their situation. Yes DC has big patches, but in this day and age it is assumed that this gens owners have the ability to patch games day one or day 300. Should we also have reviews of games with dial up for that portion that is routing their internet that way? Review sites could certainly note a patch was used for their review copy, that is responsible.

 

[Synth]

The original score should be reflective of that and hopefully sales as well. In this reality, maybe reviewers will be more harsh and call a turd a turd and the developer can do what they can to fix it.

And this promotes post-release coverage which is also great. I don't like when coverage is only based on invited studio visits and provided footage.

How they edit the review isn't the problem (although yes, they should definite leave the original score and impressions there too). The problem is that someone actually has to do it. It doesn't re-review itself, and sufficient time isn't being dedicated to reviews as it is.

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.

Polygon adjusted its score down actually. I think they were the only site to do the same to Driveclub too. So, yay consistency?

 

[firelogic]

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.

Devs don't give a crap about the game once the first month has elapsed. Game sales are heavily front loaded. They're not going to release a bad game because they'll improve on it 6 months down the line to get a stellar score at that point. It's counter-intuitive to everything.

Updating a review is a good idea because the first review is just what the game's state was in at launch. If it's changed significantly, it most definitely does need to be re-reviewed. Why? Because someone thinking of picking up the game today isn't going to be playing the game that was reviewed. For example, if I want to buy Diablo 3 today, there's no point in reading reviews because the game is completely different from when it launched.

 

[Oersted]

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.

Some reviews took the failed launch into account, others didn't, for example because they didn't face the issues because they tested it pre-public launch.

Which is the fundamental problem of this thread. Reviewers get games in different states of development and take different things into account. Heck, thats why in this discussion, which we already had about Driveclub, we lack the reviews which should be redone and the perspective if they could do it (lack of manpower, lack of incentive etc).

 

[shauntu]

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).

With Splatoon interestingly, the DLC being rolled out is in fact all included in the disc and thus shipped at launch. Its just being 'released' on a timetable.

Another good example meanwhile would be Witcher 3!

 

[Disaster Nebraska]

List wars are harder when the scores keep changing.

 

[erawsd]

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.

Im not saying that the press shouldn't re-review games. I'm saying I have no expectation that they do and its not something important to me.

I also have to say that I dont know of many re-reviews for other products either. People will review the new iPhone and new OS, but no body goes back and re-reviews the old iPhone with the new software. Likewise for TV shows, Movies, ect.. Those things arent generally reviewed again unless they are being sold on a new platform.

 

[system11]

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.

It's an even bigger disincentive when they know they only have one shot, that fixing it and getting a better review and a few more sales down the line as a result will not happen.

It's obvious that two chances are more than one.

 

[Lady Gaia]

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.

Games are already releasing as broken messes and being taken to task for it in reviews. It has had negative impact on both stock prices and sales, so that part seems to be working okay.

... but if there aren't re-reviews then there's zero incentive for companies to address issues large or small, or to continue investing in a game. I loved that Driveclub didn't just get fixed, it got some major love in both content and features. I'd like to see more games that do so and supplemental reviews are one way of recognizing it when it happens.

 

[DeepEnigma]

List wars are harder when the scores keep changing.

Hahaha, almost spit out my tea, because this is painfully obvious with a few in here.

 

[brotkasten]

Because the key purpose of a review after all is to punish or reward the publisher in the public eye. If only there was a format for stuff like that, maybe call it an editorial, and leave reviews as relevant consumer information, oh well, a man can dream.

A review is there to inform potential customers and not to reward the publisher for fixing their messy launch afterwards. If the game sucks at launch, show it. If it gets fixed later, mention it in an update in the review. But I really don't see the need to change the score. If anything, give it a second score, but leave the initial impression intact (positive or negative).

 

[Hugstable]

With Splatoon interestingly, the DLC being rolled out is in fact all included in the disc and thus shipped at launch. Its just being 'released' on a timetable.

Another good example meanwhile would be Witcher 3!

Honestly if I was Nintendo in all that, I would have opened up all the on-disk maps and weapons for journalists to mess around with to have a full review, while being completely upfront with consumers that you are planning a timed roll out release of content in order to help build interest and hold it since there would always be something new added each week or so. Would have given journalists the full amount of content and such. (lol I have no clue if my way would be good or anything, I'd probably end up sinking Nintendo with my business decisions)

But even with how they released it I feel the same, update old reviews or write new impressions for the the new added content, but leave your scores the same, don't start making the number higher or lower. The base review in these cases should be really focused on the mechanics of the game and how well it is and reviewing the available content at launch.

 

[Steroyd]

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

No it won't!

Think it through more logically, why the fuck do publishers manipulate review embargoes, have reviewers contractually say only positive things or they don't get a review copy (Shadow of Mordor), those scummy publishers only care about day one sales and what DLC they can shove down the suckers who bought the game, I think if a dev improves their game to the point it's unrecognizable from launch for better or worse should at least be acknowledged or there's no point reading that review at all anymore.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

Good job Evolution, it's been rough but the game finally reaches its potential.

 

[devonodev]

Yes, I like to read a review of what I'll be buying, no matter how long after the release date it is.

I don't think anyone is obligated to update their review, but I'll be happy when they do.

 

[SirMossyBloke]

Nope, review what it comes with.

Driveclub comes with weather. The current reviews don't mention that.

So I guess you're actually for it.

 

[OmegaDL50]

Hahaha, almost spit out my tea, because this is painfully obvious with a few in here.

Well it needed to be said.

As said numerous times, reviews are aren't a history lesson, It's information for a potential buyer to know exactly what they are getting.

Peoples own personal feelings or list wars have no ground to stand on here. And if those folks think the reviews are targeted at them for the sake of list wars, then they fail to understand the concept of what a "product review" is begin with.

 

[Evantist]

Personally I would like to read a review for what the game is, and not what the game was. The majority of the games are no longer static products. Broken or not, developers spend countless hours after the game's release to make it even better and I would prefer some form of recognition to their effort if the changes are really significant.

Although I do think that the reviewers have the right to decide whether to revise their reviews.

 

[antitrop]

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.

Destiny's expansions are already reviewed individually. Going back and updating the original review would be... ridiculous.

 

[MrS]

Naw, you review what's in the box.

First post nails it yet again. Re-reviewing games that were broken at launch shouldn't be a thing in my opinion. Devs currently get a fair chance of good, fair reviews when they launch and it should just stay like that. I am aware that some games evolve, but that's no excuse for devs releasing broken games, and a game as broken as Driveclub was should live in infamy instead of having it's history glossed over by reviewers.

Spoiler

I may or may not have been burned by purchasing DRIVECLUB on Day 1

 

[Bornstellar]

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

Alternatively, does Titanfall get a 10 now?

 

[GRaider81]

The way games are released and evolve nowadays then yes I think it makes sense to go back and re review.

Essentially if you haven't bought the game yet you might look at reviews. The game is vastly different now.

 

[TheAdmiester]

Driveclub comes with weather. The current reviews don't mention that.

So I guess you're actually for it.

What the disc/original download comes with.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

I don't think we can demand that all sites continually update reviews (that's a lot to ask), but when it's possible, it should be done. A review exists to inform me, the consumer, of the quality of the software. This isn't just about bad games becoming good mind you. Some games seem fine in review but turn to crap in wide release. Halo M:CC should have had scores revised down. You really want me to believe that it deserves an 85 Metacritic? An 81 for BF4, another broken game? Yeah, no.

I don't give a rat's ass about "rewarding publishers/devs" or anything like that. Not my problem. I want information.

What the disc/original download comes with.

So what do you do when "what the disc comes with" works great in review but turns to shit on actual retail release?

 

[Despera]

Personally I would like to read a review for what the game is, and not what the game was. The majority of the games are no longer static products. Broken or not, developers spend countless hours after the game's release to make it even better and I would prefer some form of recognition to their effort if the changes are really significant.

Although I do think that the reviewers have the right to decide whether to revise their reviews.

I can think of at least one advantage for keeping the original review intact. If a game is released broken/lacking important features at launch and you have access to that info, you'll probably be extra careful with that company's future output, and probably wait a while and do more research before buying their games.

 

[Sotha_Sil]

I absolutely support re-reviewing provided that the original score is still listed somewhere in the new review.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Well it needed to be said.

As said numerous times, reviews are aren't a history lesson, It's information for a potential buyer to know exactly what they are getting.

Peoples own personal feelings or list wars have no ground to stand on here. And if those folks think the reviews are targeted at them for the sake of list wars, then they fail to understand the concept of what a "product review" is begin with.

Well said.

 

[Purest 78]

Naw, you review what's in the box.

Reviews are to inform the consumer not to prove points. If you're a food reviewer and you give a restaurant bad review. Months later you're invited to try the food again but everything is much improved. You're saying the restaurant should get the same low score based of his 1st experience?

 

[TheAdmiester]

So what do you do when "what the disc comes with" works great in review but turns to shit on actual retail release?

Keep it that way. The reviewer rates what they experienced. It's finalised, and any bad things that happen after release are down to the dev/publisher. The reviewer's job is already done.

 

[DeepEnigma]

What the disc/original download comes with.

What about the all digital people?

The download is not the same as the original disc.

Keep it that way. The reviewer rates what they experienced. It's finalised, and any bad things that happen after release are down to the dev/publisher. The reviewer's job is already done.

This is a joke post, right? Right?

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Keep it that way. The reviewer rates what they experienced. It's finalised, and any bad things that happen after release are down to the dev/publisher. The reviewer's job is already done.

How does that make sense? The reviewer often experiences something that the public won't experience (at least not for months, if ever). So in other words, you want a world where a review is a useless piece of trash that can't help consumers make purchasing decisions. G

Great. At least you're transparent in your silliness.

 

[TheAdmiester]

What about the all digital people?

The download is not the same as the original disc.

Basically the vanilla game. In the case of the download you'd have to basically shut off internet access to keep said version, but if you pre order or buy at launch before any patches fix the game, download-only people still get a broken game at first.

 

[ScatheZombie]

As more and more games move away from games as a product and onto games as a service - where the game is given continuous support, updates, and content from the publisher/developer - then it makes sense that game journalists will have to continue to review the ever-changing experience that the game provides.

The amount of new content (both paid and free) and updates that Driveclub has seen since launch makes it much closer to an MMO than a traditional boxed console game. And MMOs get constantly re-reviewed by the MMO-centric press as new major patches, new content, and new updates roll out to the game and change the quality of the game experience.

It doesn't mean they go back and change their original article or their original score, because that's a valid data point and criticism of the game at the time. But it would make sense to run another review a product that's seen significant changes since version 1.0.

EDIT:

So in other words, you want a world where a review is a useless piece of trash that can't help consumers make purchasing decisions.

For the most part, this is already true.

 

[hawk2025]

Basically the vanilla game. In the case of the download you'd have to basically shut off internet access to keep said version, but if you pre order or buy at launch before any patches fix the game, download-only people still get a broken game at first.

...yeah, you are not making much sense.

At some point, we just have to realize that the mental gymnastics needed to have a firm stance on no re-reviews these days simply aren't cognizant with the realities of the market.

 

[Uthred]

It's an even bigger disincentive when they know they only have one shot, that fixing it and getting a better review and a few more sales down the line as a result will not happen.

It's obvious that two chances are more than one.

Repeating your argument is not explaining it, it remains as nonsensical as it was the first time. By your own statement the current status quo according to you is that reviews dont get updated and publishers release broken games day one. So clearly knowing that they "only have on shot" is not a particularly large incentive to release working games. Its also no incentive to fix their game, as apparently only the first review and initial sales count. If addended reviews become the status quo that will at the very least give the developers an incentive to fix their games, to generate more sales in the long tail. I've also outlined why I think it will be an incentive to release more games in working order on day 1, you think it will do the opposite because....well because you said so apparently.

Your amazing math breakthrough about how two is greater than one seems like a bizarre non sequitur, and you framing a review as a "chance" for the publisher strikes me as a bit at odds with what a reviews main purpose is.

A review is there to inform potential customers and not to reward the publisher for fixing their messy launch afterwards. If the game sucks at launch, show it. If it gets fixed later, mention it in an update in the review. But I really don't see the need to change the score. If anything, give it a second score, but leave the initial impression intact (positive or negative).

I agree that a second score is the way to go, you have the initial review which is useful for a historical perspective on the game and the publisher and the new score and, more importantly, new part of the review, which is useful to the current consumer.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Basically the vanilla game. In the case of the download you'd have to basically shut off internet access to keep said version, but if you pre order or buy at launch before any patches fix the game, download-only people still get a broken game at first.

You are making no sense.

I am talking someone who buys Driveclub now on the PSN. You know, the purpose of this thread.

 

[TheAdmiester]

You are making no sense.

I am talking someone who buys Driveclub now on the PSN. You know, the purpose of this thread.

Well in that case, reviews would still be pretty much accurate. Most of the reviews for DC were carried out before launch, before the main issue with the game, which was its server issues. A review would have focused on the single player or a working multiplayer environment, and because all of the launch issues have been cleared, the reviews would surely still be accurate, right?

Re-reviewing would also bring re-re-reviewing into play. If you update a review once, what's stopping you from doing it again? If DC's servers were extremely temperamental, how frequently should a journalist update the review? I mean, if it was the case a lot of old EA games would have dropped in score because their multiplayer servers went down, but by that point it's too far past the release of the game for review updates to really matter.

It just seems like too much work to constantly keep it up to date when a single, launch day/pre-launch review is accurate, especially when there's a constant flow of new releases to keep up with.

 

[SirMossyBloke]

What the disc/original download comes with.

If I downloaded Driveclub today it would come with weather. Why would a review thats old help me.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

EDIT:

For the most part, this is already true.

There's a lot of backlash against reviews, but no it's not true.

 

[nib95]

Well in that case, reviews would still be pretty much accurate. Most of the reviews for DC were carried out before launch, before the main issue with the game, which was its server issues. A review would have focused on the single player or a working multiplayer environment, and because all of the launch issues have been cleared, the reviews would surely still be accurate, right?

Re-reviewing would also bring re-re-reviewing into play. If you update a review once, what's stopping you from doing it again? If DC's servers were extremely temperamental, how frequently should a journalist update the review? I mean, if it was the case a lot of old EA games would have dropped in score because their multiplayer servers went down, but by that point it's too far past the release of the game for review updates to really matter.

It just seems like too much work to constantly keep it up to date when a single, launch day/pre-launch review is accurate, especially when there's a constant flow of new releases to keep up with.

Lol, first you completely missed his point, now you are just ignoring it. If someone bought Driveclub digitally today, a review would not "still be pretty much accurate", not even close.

My post earlier mentioning some of the changes.

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.

 

[KaYotiX]

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

No they shouldn't

They review whats put out at the time.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Its cool if they want to, but I don't think outlets should feel obligated to do it, and certainly don't think publishers should start pressuring it in anyway.

 

[zackmorris]

If you want your finished product reviewed than you should release your finished product in the first place

 

[TheAdmiester]

Lol, first you completely missed his point, now you are just ignoring it. If someone bought Driveclub digitally today, a review would not "still be pretty much accurate", not even close.

My post earlier mentioning some of the changes.

You just said I was ignoring his point, yet you addressed the part where I acknowledged his point. To most reviewers, the only thing from that list that is a massive game changer is weather, and in the base game tours, weather isn't there. It is a big difference but it's not major enough to be worth spending the time for a re-review on, when like I said plenty of entirely new games are always coming out.

 

[nib95]

If you want your finished product reviewed than you should release your finished product in the first place

What if a developer always intended their game to be tweaked and updated based on gamer feedback and request, and constantly evolving or growing over time?

You just said I was ignoring his point, yet you addressed the part where I acknowledged his point. To a reviewer, the only thing from that list that is a massive game changer is weather, and in the base game tours, weather isn't there. It is a big difference but it's not major enough to be worth spending the time for a re-review on, when like I said plenty of entirely new games are always coming out.

Lol, many of those are major additions or tweaks, that for many of us have added dozens and dozens of hours of additional game time. To just overlook them as trifling is massively underselling the efforts Evolution have gone to, to continually expand their game, content and feature set.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

No they shouldn't

They review whats put out at the time.

Apparently I'm going to have to repeat myself: This isn't just about bad games becoming good. Seemingly "good" games can turn out to be crap. What they review isn't always representative of what the game is like for the public either. So how do you manage that?

If you want your finished product reviewed than you should release your finished product in the first place

Yeah, I LOVE the score that the "finished product" called Battlefield 4 got. Truly an accurate depiction of that game at release!