Zekkyou on 13 November 2015
| Veknoid_Outcast said: Was just chatting about this with some folks on AIM. While I get why IGN decided to do this, I think it sets a bad example. Games SHOULD be judged on their day-one build. If publishers or developers want a positive score, then they should be trained to release a full, working game at launch. And publications and consumers should be trained to expect a full, working game at launch. If a publisher decides to hold back content (to be released later for free or behind a paywall) or decides to release a buggy, poorly-optimized product, then it should be held accountable. The score should suffer as a result. And the publisher and/or developer shouldn't expect a second review once the content that could have, should have been available on day one is finally released days, weeks, or months down the line. |
I completely agree. While i can understand the arguments in favor of re-reviews, i don't personally think we should be holding developers and publishers less accountable to the state their games release in. We already see quite a few games release either incomplete or in a sub-standard technical state, and that's with them being held permanently accountable to the game's day 1 state. Giving them more leeway isn't going to help at all.
