By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
twesterm on 02 February 2010
Edit Thread
Thechalkblock said:
twesterm said:
Thechalkblock said:
dsister44 said:
Thechalkblock said:
I'm questioning the legitimacy of these reviews honestly. The game allows 256 players, of course it won't be perfect upon release. I think it's very possible this game will be a lot better than a big reviewer's 7.

So what are you saying? That they shouldn't review the game at all. Or that they should give it a ten because it might get better

Neither. I'm saying reviews for this game might be even more pointless than reviews usually are. Don't get me wrong, I could care less about this game; it isn't my type of thing. The situation the game's in is just a prime example of the lack of game review credibility.

Did you actually read the review?  They actually talk about how they had to wait a week so they could review the game because they didn't want to base their review on the beta and wanted to wait on being able to play the actual game with actual people with the servers open.

I don't really get your reasoning for not trusting the review.

Sure they waited, but was it long enough? Nowadays games are released incomplete, it's just the way it is. They're updated and fixed after release. In other words they reviewed a version of the game that isn't yet complete. Many games are updated, receive extra content, are tweaked, etc. and become better games than they originally were. A review can only review the version of the game that currently exists. If MAG is fixed up in a couple months and turns out to become an exceptional game, is IGN going to update it's review for the game? No.

Reviewers can't just go around updating their game reviews whenever a game is fixed, of course. What does this say about the legitimacy of the review? The review becomes nothing more than an impression for the incomplete version of a game. It takes the validity of the review away in comparison to the final package.

I'm not saying it's right for games to be released incomplete, but the fact remains unchanged that the game will most likely be fixed and subsequently better.

I don't mistrust the review, but rather disregard it.

You can call games incomplete and I can understand that, but then when do you call them ready for review?

A week?

A month?

Six months?

A year?

How long should customers have to wait for reviews? 

Should every game get the same amount of time?

Or should we go back to the Atari days when there weren't game reviews and it was a complete crap shoot when you buy a game?

In a perfect world you could ask the Game Stop employee or friends and that would be enough, but it isn't.  Fanboys will always say a game is a 10/10 if they like it or a 1/10 if they don't, you just won't get a straight answer.  The only option is to turn to an impartial site (and lets not argue they aren't impartial here, just in case you're thinking that, that's another thread).  Again, perfect world people would actually read reviews but we all know they don't.

Complain all you want, if the developer doesn't want a low score for an incomplete game, they shouldn't release an incomplete game.  That isn't the reviewers fault, by your logic it's the developers (or publishers) choice.