Support NeoGAF

[Kthulhu]

Bingo.

Good on them for fixing the bug, but the game shouldn't have shipped like that in the first place. Especially in this instance where it's not like he was playing pre-release code. This was the full product that consumers could buy as well. Consumers shouldn't be expected to need to opt-in to beta patches after release to keep their saves from corrupting.

I like the precedent this review sets. An actual penalty for publishers rushing shit out the door before it's ready.

To be fair to those who are upset, I do agree that IGN should mention the bug has been fixed, but if they don't want to change the score, I personally don't think they're obligated to. That opens up a whole discussion about altering reviews because a game got patched.

 

[Philtastic]

Accounting for performance issues and bugs is paramount for reviews. This not only encourages developers to release complete and bug minimized games but you're being a bit naïve assuming that all or any of the issues will be fixed.

 

[Tyraniboah]

Reviews are based on the experience of the critic. If he encountered the bug that destroyed his game then he has the right to score it accordingly. I read reviews for content and not scores anyway, so the rare bug having been patched doesn't affect my decision to purchase anyway. This is pretty much only relevant to metacritic hounds and, frankly, the aggregate shouldn't matter unless dev bonuses are tied to it. Even then, the developers have a legitimate gripe. Shouldn't be a big deal for the rest of us.

 

[Aeana]

A review is a reflection of the reviewer's experience. His experience was bad. The reason why we have multiple reviewers out there reviewing things is so that we can get multiple perspectives.

The real problem here is that people are concerned that someone's score for a game will affect how it's ranked, so they want to police what should or should not be factored into a score. People were never so concerned about review scores before score aggregators hit the scene.

 

[TB14]

Can anyone name the last game to get a separate review for PC from IGN? Dishonored 2? No. Fallout 4? Nope. Both of which had far more widespread issues than Prey. Either way, this is a perfect example of why unscored reviews are superior.

 

[Rellik]

A review is a reflection of the reviewer's experience. His experience was bad. The reason why we have multiple reviewers out there reviewing things is so that we can get multiple perspectives.

The real problem here is that people are concerned that someone's score for a game will affect how it's ranked, so they want to police what should or should not be factored into a score. People were never so concerned about review scores before score aggregators hit the scene.

/thread.

If I boot up a game and it breaks on the first loading screen then it's trying a 1/10. I can't review someone else's experience.

 

[AEdouard]

It's a lot of manpower to review different versions, so it's understandable when some sites don't do it. But I think it's helpful if the differences are that big.

For example, Dragon Age Origins, New Vegas, or Fallout 4.



I mean, he can't just be like "Yeah so I couldn't beat the game, but others are saying it's good so....9/10"

It sucks that it happened but the review should be based on the reviewer's experience, and they already posted that if that patch fixes things, they'll go back to it.

Well no, they should start again and publish the review a little later.