Do you agree with the way people approach metacritic on Killzone and Killer Instinct

[Veknoid_Outcast]

platformmaster918 said:

Veknoid_Outcast said:

NYANKS said:
I hated when reviewers did somethign like this to Socom. A lot of places gave it bad reviews because the online multiplayer was having problems right at launch. They didn't review the game, they just reviewed the launch. The game was fine a few days after, but the review damage was done. Kinda sucks.

I'm not familiar with the SOCOM situation, but don't you think a developer should be penalized for releasing a buggy, broken, or otherwise incomplete game? If reviewers judge games only by their potential, what incentive is there for studios to release a polished, stable, and complete game?

he's not saying to judge it based on potential but perhaps wait a little or revise a score or just add an a note at the beginning of the review if they HAVE improved the game, especially if you're judging online.  I mean Diablo at launch or WoW after an expansion would get horrible reviews if they were being penalized for the online capabilities.

But that's giving more importance and leeway to the developer/publisher and less to the consumer, who, in theory, should be the most important person in this scenario. Delaying a review or glossing over bugs at launch helps the company and hurts the consumer interested in the game.

If a website or publication wants to write a second review once the issues are cleared up, I'm OK with that. But that shouldn't be a right of the publisher. It should be up the the discretion of the site or publication.