Quantcast
Is Polygon right to drop DriveClub review score?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Is Polygon right to drop DriveClub review score?

Tagged games:

Should Polygon now do this to all games?

Yes 109 61.24%
 
No 41 23.03%
 
Samuel L 'Mother F*cking... 26 14.61%
 
Total:176
prayformojo said:
Pipedream24 said:
prayformojo said:
Pipedream24 said:
Way too many games are being released unfinished and unpolished. People paying full launch price for a game and not being able to enjoy many of it's features is just inexcusable. You are going to charge for a beta, fine let people no that up front. So yes, they should have dropped their review score and so should everyone else. The game is a mess.


Behold...THE FUTURE! Gotta love how people defend and celebrate the rise of online centric console gaming. Back in the PS2 days, games released fully tested and AAA were never totally broken. Now it's common place and people actually defend it. 

I think the hardest thing to deal with when you have a high IQ, is accepting that 90% of the population doesn't.

I love the fact that developers can fix small glitches and get input from players to improve the experience. Testers can't catch every glitch and being able to patch out the ones that are missed is great. Having to patch an entire game because it is broken is just ridiculous. Quite frankly, having to patch in weather effects is ridiculous as well. The game was not ready to be released. Plain and simple. Just like Battlefield 4, it is going to be months before the game is truly complete...and that is just sad. But like you stated, people keep defending it, keep buying broken crap, and the cycle continues.


But here's my point. Is having the ability to fix small glitches worth putting up with the Drive Clubs, Battlefields and the overall price gouging we've seen with games getting chopped in half and then released in DLC packages? I don't remember anyone complaining about any AAA games back in the day. No one complained about SMB or Super Metroid. No one bitched about Metal Gear Solid or OOT.

AAA games use to release IN FULL and for the most part, had nothing major wrong with them. If they did, they'd get panned and no one would buy them. But isn't that a GOOD thing? Shouldn't developers who lack skills and don't use testers get punished? 

That's my point. I honestly don't think it was worth it. I think it's caused more harm than good.

I agree with you 100%



Around the Network

Only if they raise the review score of some games that improve shortly after being released.



foodfather said:
Yes. Hell yes.

This way you wouldn't have games like MW2 scoring 91 on metacritic.

MW2 has a 94 metacritic.

OT: Well if you lower the score of a game, you better be ready to raise it when patches come out, that's only fair. Imagine if BF4 or GTA5 had their scores changed because their MP's were atrocious at launch.



No.

Because when they released a patch for the game get better, the game sites don't grow up the review scores. So why they should downgrade the scores after they already give the score? it doesn't make sense.



It would be crazy to actually update every single game's score over time as more things are added. The problem being that (save for these online issues) scores would only go up as things are patched. And I don't think a 8.0 game's scores deserve to go up just because they implemented some additional content. Fixing all the "problems" with your game and giving us more random content does not make your game eventually deserve a 9 or a 10.

A game should get an initial score uninfluenced by any future developments. Any DLC should be scored separately, free or paid.
In this case where they could not know about the server problems until launch I don't know what to say. I'm alright with them lowering the score temporarily in order to encourage a swift remedy, but I think this could just be done by putting a temporary big disclaimer at the top of the review about the game's current broken state.



Around the Network
Wagram said:
I think it's fair, but I think it's pretty petty to single out one developer. Why was there never review drops for Skyrim? It only ran at sub 10fps on my PS3. It only had 1,000 bugs and glitches. But Driveclub, has server troubles 5/10!

 Skyrim was reviewed primarily on Xbox. So theres bo point in lowering 360s score because of PS3.



Or they should stop being traffic whores and release their reviews when they can play the game in a normal environment. It's just like Battlefield 4 last year where gaming sites reviewed the game before they even had a chance to play the game with the general public to see how the servers would perform.



I am the Playstation Avenger.

   

paulrage2 said:
No.

Because when they released a patch for the game get better, the game sites don't grow up the review scores. So why they should downgrade the scores after they already give the score? it doesn't make sense.


They said that they will raise it when it gets better. But I think if it takes too long to fully fix it shouldn't go up by much.



jlmurph2 said:
Wagram said:
I think it's fair, but I think it's pretty petty to single out one developer. Why was there never review drops for Skyrim? It only ran at sub 10fps on my PS3. It only had 1,000 bugs and glitches. But Driveclub, has server troubles 5/10!

 Skyrim was reviewed primarily on Xbox. So theres bo point in lowering 360s score because of PS3.


That is not an excuse. I'm sorry.



Well its a bit harsh but I think its fair. The game didn't work at launch, and that's when its most important. More games should get bad reviews if they are broken.



    

NNID: FrequentFlyer54