I will agree that Nintendo games tend to have less problems at launch. With that said, they also tend to delay their games the most. 2 different business strategy's.

1) Release a "broken" game & then release patches to fix it (The bugs are often not even that bad)

2) Delay a game until bugs are non-existent

Either way, you get your "working" game later than anticipated.

To be honest, it is the beginning of the gen. Maybe it will get better over time. If not, then...

Anyway, developers are probably under dead-lines. It's the publishers that need to learn to have a more realistic launch-time goal

I personally blame both. Publishers for not delaying the game and Developers for not being able to manage their time. Granted there are some exceptions where the publisher sets tooo much of a restrictive time but usually, they give the developers 2-3 years to make a game which after many years of working in the industry, they should know how to manage it more efficiently

Reviews have lost all meaning a long time ago.

I'm going to wait to review this thread until it gets a logic patch.

Knowing me you will be waiting an awfully long time for it

Here's some logic...how about we use Metacritic to determine the percentage of the original price a developer can charge for their game.  So if a game gets a 75 on Metacritic, then the consumer should only be responsible for 75% of the value of that game.  As the game gets better (by your logic) then the developer can charge more.  Eventually (maybe) they will actually finish the game and can charge the full price for it.

I get what you are saying, but what is your solution to this? Should reviewers be asked to wait until devs and pubs have had a chance to patch and fix their game before they review it as a standard? How about we go back to when games weren't released until they were done. It wasn't that long ago. The "games were simpler and not as complex" reason that a lot of people say is a total copout also. Games have always trended with the technology available to them since the late 1970's. The modern problem with unfinished games being released is 100% caused by greed and consumers allowing it by pre-ordering and supporting season passes, dlc and nothing else.

Well, I remember a while back, IGN said they'd update the reviews of games that have changed significantly since launch. I still find the reviews accurate enough for me because I focus more on the article (and watch a few videos) than I do on the final score. And over time, you discover personal rules that apply for you. For example, I would enjoy any licensed game from a property I already love (Digimon, DragonballZ, etc) that scores 7.5 - 8 when reviewed by someone who isn't biased towards the property about as much as I would enjoy a regular 90s game. I also noticed that niche games or 3DS eshop games that score somewhere in the 80s are boring for me.

You should start a petition