I don't blame the reviewers for what's happening. I'm just saying how reviews at launch don't accurately describe the finished product. I do believe that reviewers should update their reviews after a certain amount of time has passed.

Personally, I think that solution would be giving a "pass" to a much larger problem.

Comparare AI between Demon's Souls and Super Mario Bros 3. Compare interaction with environment between the same games. Most indie developers could make Super Mario Bros in a matter of months without any glitches. The same can't be said for games like Infamous, GTA, God of War: Ascension etc. And of course I'm not talking about environments. Most games back then were like a puzzle. Now things are insanely more complicated (except for indies).

Uhm... why are we blaming the reviews? Isn't this the fault of the games? Why should I have day 1 patch? a day 14 patch? Why wasn't the game ready when it released.. its would be like going to a movie but they haven't shot the ending yet.. come back 2 weeks later.. it will be a better movie then.. there is nothing wrong with the reviews, there is something wrong with the industry with their "We'll patch it later" way of thinking

I simply avoid reviews that hand out scores, when there's no score then there is less of an incentive to craft the review around one, and while many reviewers will not admit it, some deliberately check for the current averages of already live reviews and either use that to seem "correct" or under/over cut it in the hopes of generating individuality/interest and thus revenue.

I'd say as a general rule games that have a large online component should be reviewed in a real world environment after launch, or in instances such as MCC / Driveclub, wait for the issues to be resolved before settling on a final score - in driveclubs case however, with what happened I'd just have not published a review at all. and instead just left it to news articles of the major issues to let potential customers decide.

I have a real issue with reviews for games with significantly sized online modes being published before their actual release date, because those reviews are done under conditions the average player will never experience.

The state of why video games aren't at their best on Day 1 is the same reason why iPhones are far more hackable than old flip phones. Games, just like technology, have advanced at a rapid rate since the 6th gen. They're far more complicated, meaning there's so many more things that go into their development, thus making them more open to issues. Sometimes, when there's so much there, it's near impossible to cover every nook and cranny, especially now that we're still in the beginning of 8th gen.

I've never cared about scores. I have read reviews around 15-10 years ago to get an idea of new games when I didn't care about the internet. I've always tried games myself then anyways and gave "bad" games a chance.

You're right about games not being the final version when it gets reviewed but most games in the past weren't either and reviewers stated that it was weeks to go (monthly magazine made them "review" games up to 10 weeks before release to have the review in the issue before the release) until release or an obvious test version.

I'm more worried about money actually. Business as we know it is driven by that, of course, and when scores aren't adjusted thanks to a "gift", they are because of ads. Throw in some crazy headlines and statements and you can pay your bills. The "big" review sites simply don't need those anymore and are floating on an even level for the masses; their reviews and scores are just what people want to read.

I never blamed the reviews. All I said was that they no longer represent a game in today's world. Games tend to get better and improve overtime. Reviews are judging the game based on how it is at launch because that's all they can do. They have to go off what they currently have. With that said, reviews don't paint the whole picture either. (because they can't, not accurate)

The LBP3 review just confirmed the bias. The main selling point of the game are the awesome levels people will make over the coming months and years. However some sites give it a really low score for some bugs in the single player and co-op that will be fixed soon.

But the same sites give Halo: MCC a free pass for having a really buggy online, which is it's main selling point. And it's too similar to past games? As I said some of these sites give games like Halo, Call of Duty, GTA, assassin's creed etc a free pass for being very similar to pass games and have done so for years. I don't think they should pull the game score down for that. Far Cry 4 is my first ever Far Cry. Is it a bad game because it's effectively Far Cry 3.5? No of course not. Now if they were releasing it every year then it should get criticized ten but like LBP it's not.