Support NeoGAF

[AmuroChan]

Exactly. Unity was broke and what'd they give it? A 7 or something? A broken game is average? Weird.

What is the solution though if the reviewer didn't encounter those game-breaking bugs? Marty Sliva who reviewed AC: Unity has said on multiple occasions that he played the game from beginning to end and didn't see any of the game-breaking issues that other people ran into. So he played the game, beat it, and in his mind it's a 7.8. What is he supposed to do at that point? Dock it points because of what other people on the internet are saying about the game?

 

[JumpJeff84]

A single person voting with their wallet means nothing, complaining will yield better results.

Yeah I'm beginning to think that creating PR issues for a company is the better way to go about things.

 

[timetokill]

This reads like a cry for help.

They know they can't stop overhyping games, getting world exclusive first looks, scoring games too high, pushing preorders and so on. They just can't. They're in too deep. It's like a drunk who has forgotten what it's like to be sober. They're scared.

This article is basically, "it's too late for me... but you still have a chance. Get out of here. Save yourself."

 

[JoduanER2]

Yeah right. F*ck off, IGN... don't you have another hype-preview or "11/10" exclusive-review to write right now? You're part of the fucking problem.

Sooo true, this is why I hate IGN, a bunch of cynical

 

[Trago]

...Coming from the site that gave Dragon Age Inquisition GOTY...

Jokes aside, I agree. Stop buying these games, otherwise the companies wont care.

We are the lifeblood of these pubs.

 

[SMattera]

It's objectively wrong.

There were plenty of broken games released in the 80s and 90s. The concept of "fixing" games just didn't exist back then (because it was impossible), so they weren't called "broken", they were just called bad.

Superman 64 is a prime example. The game is plagued with bugs that make it virtually unplayable. But no one called it broken back then -- they just said it was a bad, buggy mess. And it is -- much worse than Unity's issues.

It's also completely unfair to cite issues with online play and compare it games released in an era where online play basically didn't exist (outside of a few PC titles).

 

[Stereogatari]

"Stop buying them."

Unfortunately those who can affect the market are not those who care.

 

[Rolodzeo]

Don't just stop buying their games, tweet them that they have to launch their products finished, email them about how glitchy and buggy their games have become. Be proactive.

They don't want to finish the game for you? Fine, then do yourself a favor and stay away from those companies.

 

[m_dorian]

This article (while i can agree with some of its basics) was written by the same person responsible for the"false sense of entitlement" video during the ME3 controversy where he appeared as a cheap corporate apologist so i ll have to try hard to take him seriously.
Also, it is IGN the kings of false hype.
Anyway it could be like a broken clock case.

 

[Quasar]

You know I'm still not really convinced its worse last in year, just that the games that are buggy are bigger names.

Of course being a longtime pc gamer maybe gives me a different pov than the console raised gaming press.

As for remedies...never preorder wait till you see post launch reviews/feedback before buying. Its not that hard.

 

[Madness]

Fucking lol, IGN had a month long exclusive preview for Master Chief Collection and hyped it as the second coming. Did they not notice any single issues? Ryan at IGN is a good dude, but it's crazy what a high score they gave MCC, one of the most broken games of the modern era.

How we can stop broken games is, by expecting our professional peers aka journalists to do their job better and actually call out companies better, not hype up games and then move on ignoring the issues.

 

[Tawney Bomb]

Everyone stop buying video games! That's a reasonable solution.

 

[ReBurn]

Everyone stop buying video games! That's a reasonable solution.

There's always going to be suckers that buy day 1. I'm learning from their mistakes.

 

[RoboPlato]

Well you should note that 99% of today's problems are online related. Back in the good'old days of Genesis and SNES such things were not part of game development. I didn't read the IGN article yet, maybe IGN already mentioned it but you should considering this when writing about the issue. I bet for example The Order as SP only game will have no problems or game breaking bugs from the beginning.

The Order and Arkham Knight are the only games I have preordered right now. SP only games from devs with a strong track record and, due to substantial Amazon gift cards and credit, I'm getting the CEs of both for only $30 total.

 

[DoubleTake]

Wonder how Evolve will score

 

[deeptech]

Basically , pre-orders are the biggest problem here i think. Publishers rely too much on marketing and fake hype before games are actually out. People should be hyped after game is out not before. We should be hyped when game actually comes out and its actually good and worth our time. There is literally no reason to why you should pre-order a video game in this day and age. People are like , "gotta play it at 00:01 , just as it unlocks" or like, they gonna die or something...

 

[Meffer]

"Stop buying them."

Yyyyyup.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

Please also remember, Colin Moriarty is the same person who called people who disliked the Mass Effect 3 ending and felt lied to "entitled".

 

[cyress8]

IGN should be quiet. I like receiving 3-10gig patches every week. Makes me feel like the devs value my time and my data cap.

 

[Quasar]

Please also remember, Colin Moriarty is the same person who called people who disliked the Mass Effect 3 ending and felt lied to "entitled".

Well I probably would too. At least the mob who browbeat them into making another ending.

 

[thelurkinghorror]

Never Pre-order a game.

.

 

[XxRampage07xX]

Sure IGN. I will stop pre-ordering and buying broken games... if you give me better reviews accurately mentioning their technical status.

 

[Darkstorne]

Never Pre-order a game.

This ^

Or at the very least, never pre-order a game before the reviews come flooding in. Chances are those reviews will be out before launch anyway, and you can make an informed decision about the game's quality and whether it really does meet your expectations enough to warrant a purchase, in which case you can still pre-order for those petty bonuses if you must have them.

If review embargoes are set for launch day, or afterwards, then stay the **** away. It's already a clear sign of a troubled game, but even if the game is great it's still a practice you don't want to reward with a pre-order.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

Be wary of the newest game in an annualized franchise, especially if we only learned details about it within a year of launch.

 

[toythatkills]

I'm a little aggrieved at being told that this is my fault from a site like IGN who happily gave Unity 8/10 and will continue to heavily publicise broken games as long as those broken games are paying handsomely for the privilege.

 

[tokkun]

I see they never played PC games back in the day. Games definitely did not launch functionally.

From a performance standpoint as well, it was de rigueur to wait a couple weeks for a new driver release to get them to a playable framerate.

 

[AmuroChan]

Sure IGN. I will stop pre-ordering and buying broken games... if you give me better reviews accurately mentioning their technical status.

It's a lose-lose proposition for them. If they wait a few day post-launch to release the review so that they can properly test out the public servers, they'll get bashed for making people who want to buy the game day 1 wait for the review. If they publish the review before the release date, which is what most people expect, they're not going to be able to give you a very accurate review of how the game will run for you on day 1.

 

[Sayter]

A major problem is that a lot of the so called gaming press get their revenue for advertising videogames. We've seen instances where a publisher either pulled their adverts, or, in two extreme cases, the reporter/reviewer was fired if they didn't like the press they received. It's a major conflict of interest going on.

Word of mouth is still the best advertising. Until enough dudebro 1's tell enough dudebro 2's "Shit, man. This shit ain't worth it." nothing will change.

 

[bigbaldwolf86]

Maybe IGN should review games that are broken pieces of shit as broken pieces of shit instead of giving them a score based on it's potential if and when it's patched.

 

[TGMIII]

I see they never played PC games back in the day. Games definitely did not launch functionally.

Never mind PC, this stuff has happened in the console space since the beginning. 1.1/1.2 versions of games were silently released all the time. A common issue that comes up in speedrunning is making sure you have the correct version of the game that has a certain glitch.

The hypocrisy of this article is ridiculous and IGN is a major part of the circus that promotes the very games that they later demonize. Ultimately none of this is going to stop, consumers will continue to pre-order and many sites like IGN will happily promote products shamelessly.

 

[Smokey]

How about you stop giving said games such good stores.

Does IGN realize the hypocrisy of this article?

 

[sonikokaruto]

Never Pre-order a game.

Especially from Gamestop

 

[Bedlam]

Fucking lol, IGN had a month long exclusive preview for Master Chief Collection and hyped it as the second coming. Did they not notice any single issues? Ryan at IGN is a good dude, but it's crazy what a high score they gave MCC, one of the most broken games of the modern era.

Is he? I recall him being the shameless, rabid fanboy, who practically begged MS to let him host their E3 show.

 

[Dryk]

"Stop reading IGN" isn't number 1. Useless article

That's how I make my contribution

 

[RedAssedApe]

This reads like a cry for help.

They know they can't stop overhyping games, getting world exclusive first looks, scoring games too high, pushing preorders and so on. They just can't. They're in too deep. It's like a drunk who has forgotten what it's like to be sober. They're scared.

This article is basically, "it's too late for me... but you still have a chance. Get out of here. Save yourself."

colin doesn't even work for ign anymore though lol

 

[VariantX]

Basically , pre-orders are the biggest problem here i think. Publishers rely too much on marketing and fake hype before games are actually out. People should be hyped after game is out not before. We should be hyped when game actually comes out and its actually good and worth our time. There is literally no reason to why you should pre-order a video game in this day and age. People are like , "gotta play it at 00:01 , just as it unlocks" or like, they gonna die or something...

I'd also go a bit further and say we need to be more weary of previews and pre-release reviews simply because those games, especially multiplayer games, are never played under the same conditions we play them in. Pre-orders no longer serve their original purpose and are used as nothing more than marketing tools to try and make you think you need something as soon as absolutely possible.

 

[Oersted]

Yeah I'm beginning to think that creating PR issues for a company is the better way to go about things.

Xbox One. It have been the reactions and press who killed the original plans.

 

[Floridian]

How about you stop giving said games such good stores.

Does IGN realize the hypocrisy of this article?

I don't trust their scores for that reason.

 

[Sn4ke_911]

Lol and this coming from Moriarty?

Laughable, go write your 25/10 review for Uncharted 4 already.

 

[hohoXD123]

What is the solution though if the reviewer didn't encounter those game-breaking bugs? Marty Sliva who reviewed AC: Unity has said on multiple occasions that he played the game from beginning to end and didn't see any of the game-breaking issues that other people ran into. So he played the game, beat it, and in his mind it's a 7.8. What is he supposed to do at that point? Dock it points because of what other people on the internet are saying about the game?

Well, yeah. If you don't encounter any problems, but there is enough evidence that there are widespread bugs then you deduct points or at least make it very clear to the reader in the review that there are major problems with the game which you didn't encounter but they may. Thankfully they did include a short snippet in the AC:U review.

 

[Trago]

A major problem is that a lot of the so called gaming press get their revenue for advertising videogames. We've seen instances where a publisher either pulled their adverts, or, in two extreme cases, the reporter/reviewer was fired. It's a major conflict of interest going on.

Word of mouth is still the best advertising. Until enough dudebro 1's tell enough dudebro 2's "Shit, man. This shit ain't worth it." nothing will change.

There's that too. It's a hellish cycle of synthetic hype to help with sales. I also hate when a site bashes a game they fucking praised in their review months later since the hype cycle ended for that game.

There's just a bunch of factors ruining AAA games that we could discuss in separate threads, it's crazy.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

It'd probably help if people called out the shills and fanboys for broken games, too.

 

[GravityMan]

Casual gamers make up 90% of the market and they generally don't keep up with gaming news...and furthermore they aren't as passionate as the hardcore. They don't pay attention to hardcore gaming sites (including NeoGAF) and even if they do they tend not to take them seriously. Gaming is entertainment, after all. The Ubisofts, EAs and Microsofts of the world know this. Voting with your wallet is good, and so is complaining. Gotta start somewhere. But unless the mainstream media starts giving a damn and raises a big stink (unlikely, they barely cover video games at all) this crap will continue. Preorders will continue to be popular for the foreseeable future...many publishers sweeten the pot with bonuses and stuff.

I think it will be years before we see any meaningful positive change in this area. Getting the mainstream audience to care will be a tough challenge.

And yes, IGN is part of the problem. Of course they aren't going to rip these publishers directly...after all the publishers pretty much pay their salaries. Conflict of interest.

"keep a list of the publishers"?

ooooookkk.

Microsoft
Sony
Activision
EA
Ubi
Take Two

So almost everyone not Nitnendo?

Nintendo's track record is good, but not perfect when it comes to releasing games with major bugs.

 

[RedAssedApe]

It's a lose-lose proposition for them. If they wait a few day post-launch to release the review so that they can properly test out the public servers, they'll get bashed for making people who want to buy the game day 1 wait for the review. If they publish the review before the release date, which is what most people expect, they're not going to be able to give you a very accurate review of how the game will run for you on day 1.

they've done "reviews in progress" before though (mmos i think?). why can't something similar be done here? is attaching a score to a review on day 1 an absolute necessity? you can still put out a partial review with a disclaimer that due to recent online launch issues and day 1 patches...ymmv and withold an actual score. if someone can't get an idea whether or not a game is good or their type of game without seeing a numbered score...your review probably sucks.

 

[AmuroChan]

Well, yeah. If you don't encounter any problems, but there is enough evidence that there are widespread bugs then you deduct points or at least make it very clear to the reader in the review that there are major problems with the game which you didn't encounter but they may.

I think they should just put a disclaimer up at the top that this review is based on the reviewer's experience alone and that the reader's experience may vary because of any post-launch patches or content that the game may receive which may either add or subtract from the overall game experience.

 

[Clefargle]

C'mon IGN, don't pretend like you're not part of the problem. Here is an example from the MCC review:

When it works like it’s supposed to, as it did at a pre-release review event and hopefully will for everyone one day soon, Master Chief Collection’s massive multiplayer suite makes me happy.

This is the problem, people like Ryan getting access to special pre-release events that are set up to promote a game within a controlled environment full of swag, celebs, and drinks. No one else got the multiplayer experience he is speaking of. But the review still scored like he had reviewed it at the event, not in the wild. There is a huge disconnect between these journos and the payers they say they represent.

 

[LoveCake]

I have cancelled all my pre-orders except Project CARS & Order 1886, i will not be pre-ordering anything else other than first party Nintendo games i want like ZeldaU, or the next GTA.

The only way is to stop buying on release day.

 

[AmuroChan]

they've done "reviews in progress" before though (mmos i think?). why can't something similar be done here? is attaching a score to a review on day 1 an absolute necessity? you can still put out a partial review with a disclaimer that due to recent online launch issues and day 1 patches...ymmv and withold an actual score. if someone can't get an idea whether or not a game is good or their type of game without seeing a numbered score...your review probably sucks.

Interesting you say that because Dan Stapleton, IGN's Review Editor was on a Reddit AMA last week and lots of people ask about similar questions.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1ol3sh/i_am_igns_reviews_editor_ama/

 

[Nanashrew]

This is what I said in their comment section and hope a mod or staff saw it.

Okay I want to say something. First off, I agree with the whole not pre-ordering things and only doing so with companies and developers you feel you can trust. However, IGN, we got a bit of a problem here. You guys get these games first before anyone else and I often see high reviews for broken games. I think big glitches and bugs should be mentioned more in a review to give us better understanding, and a better score that reflects the troubles caused by them. Halo: MCC comes to mind with it's 9.0, but AC:Unity with a 7, that's fine, I'd personally go a tad lower then up it after the performance patches.

I think the the information on these problems need to be more well reported and more reflected in reviews from you and your peers.

 

[ugh_the_boot]

IGN so desperate for clicks they shitting on themselves now.