By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Reviewers Should Update Their Scores (System Broken)

Dgc1808 on 15 March 2015
bigtakilla said:
I disagree, developers should make sure their game is ready to go from day 1. I think the amount of patches a game receives should lower a games score.


I agree that a game should be ready to go Day 1. I disagree that patches should lower a score. The score should reflect the quality of the game and nothing else. If a patch means quality's going up, the score should not go down.

EDITED



4 ≈ One

Around the Network
curl-6 on 15 March 2015
tokilamockingbrd said:
curl-6 said:
How about devs actually ship complete products instead of buggy, broken, unfinished pieces of crap?


thats not always the case, sometimes the issue is replayability and if they patch in a mode that helps in that regard it does not mean the game was crap or the devs shipped a lemon.

For instance the single biggest knock on the Order is value. If they added a co-horde mode because players want that it should reflect in the score. Ya it wont go up to a 90% because people also had issues with some of the gameplay (or lack there of) but it would certainly pull it out of the 60s.

And it should work the other way around like I mentioned with my Hotel Analogy. No way MCC should be an 87. It was reviewed in one state and was released and currently is in another. It should be dropped until they fix the issues then it can have its 87 back.

Devs have a responsibility to ship a complete product, bumping scores to take into account post-launch fixes only encourages the insulting practice of "release it now, fix it later".



PieToast on 15 March 2015
curl-6 said:
tokilamockingbrd said:


thats not always the case, sometimes the issue is replayability and if they patch in a mode that helps in that regard it does not mean the game was crap or the devs shipped a lemon.

For instance the single biggest knock on the Order is value. If they added a co-horde mode because players want that it should reflect in the score. Ya it wont go up to a 90% because people also had issues with some of the gameplay (or lack there of) but it would certainly pull it out of the 60s.

And it should work the other way around like I mentioned with my Hotel Analogy. No way MCC should be an 87. It was reviewed in one state and was released and currently is in another. It should be dropped until they fix the issues then it can have its 87 back.

Devs have a responsibility to ship a complete product, bumping scores to take into account post-launch fixes only encourages the insulting practice of "release it now, fix it later".

If a website hypothetically choose to change the score, or maybe post an article about how a game improved after an update, then they shouldn't reconsider just to make a statement about the gaming industry.



.- -... -.-. -..

curl-6 on 15 March 2015
PieToast said:
curl-6 said:

Devs have a responsibility to ship a complete product, bumping scores to take into account post-launch fixes only encourages the insulting practice of "release it now, fix it later".

If a website hypothetically choose to change the score, or maybe post an article about how a game improved after an update, then they shouldn't reconsider just to make a statement about the gaming industry.

They shouldn't reconsider at all; the product sold on shelves is what should be reviewed, because that is what was  sold to us.



Blob on 16 March 2015

It's funny how many threads are popping up about reviews being broken now that there are more and more games being released broken. Definitely the reviewers problem here.....



Around the Network
gatito on 16 March 2015

Then everyone should wait and buy until the game is finished and ready to be sold to the consumer.



theRepublic on 16 March 2015

In an ideal world, I wouldn't mind a clear update section at the end of a review, detailing what patches have fixed in the game. I would not support changes to the original review, including the score.

In the real world, what incentive to review sites have to do this? I would bet the vast majority of hits on any particular review come within just a few weeks of launch. Why should they spend man hours updating old reviews that barely get looked at? Especially when the developer/publisher did not make the effort to make a good game in the first place.



Switch Code: SW-7377-9189-3397 -- Nintendo Network ID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
Switch - Super Mario Maker 2 (2019)
3DS - Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (Trilogy) (2005/2014)
Mobile - Yugioh Duel Links (2017)
Mobile - Super Mario Run (2017)
PC - Borderlands 2 (2012)
PC - Deep Rock Galactic (2020)

curl-6 on 16 March 2015
Blob said:

It's funny how many threads are popping up about reviews being broken now that there are more and more games being released broken. Definitely the reviewers problem here.....

And some people actually defend companies releasing unfinished premature ejaculations that require patches just to function as advertised.



nanarchy on 16 March 2015
tokilamockingbrd said:
I think all of you are missing the point or have a warped sense of what a review should be. Its seems to you a review should be a way the gaming community can punish a dev which is just wrong.

If it is broken at launch the dev will lose sales at the full price point. If the game is fixed or amended they cant undo lost sales.

Reviews are for the consumer and in many cases that do not properly do their job.

developers only have themselves to blame. If they are incapable of getting the game right the first time it is unreasonable to expect reviewers to keep checking the game to see if it is fixed, especially after the initial release sales surge is over. Updating the score for incredibly badly handled releases and online is fair enough as reviewers can't really check that prior to release. Reviews aren't there to punish developers, but they aren't there to reward there poor releases either.  Life is too short with way to many games constantly being released, why would anyone want to go back and review something on the hope it has been fixed.



Tachikoma on 16 March 2015

reviewers shouldnt be applying scores in the first place.