I take it you didnt buy a launch 3DS?

I think it'd be great.

Halo Master Chiefs Collection scores would have been lowered had they experienced the online issues everyone else had.

No, I did not.

I honestly don't know why the heck they thought launching with one analogue stick was a good idea...

isnt even that, as ive mentioned on here many times, half of the firmware would open a *feature not available* screen with a press x to go back diaglog and nothing more, no store, no 3d camera, many of the options under settings would give the above error.

3DS's firmware wasnt ready at launch, not even close.

I actually was not aware of this as I didn't buy one. I stand by my statement though, I don't approve of companies releasing unfinished products. Including Nintendo.

Nope. Publishers/Developers who are willing to release a broken (but fixable) game to the public shouldn't receive any form of concession in the form of revised reviews just because they get around to patching the game to the point where it should have been at launch.

That kind of practice can not and should not be supported or tolerated in any way, shape or form. There are plenty of other forums and mechanisms by which potential buyers can be informed that the game has been 'fixed', but upgrading the review score shouldn't be one of them.

to me it has nothing to do with the developers feelings. When I am looking for a game to play that is not new (I usually follow the status of new games) I would like to know how good the game is not how it might have been 2 years ago when I was not considering a purchase(or avoided based on reviews).

For me time is my limitation so I could care less really if a game is 15 dollars or 60. I am just looking for which one is the best experiance so if its an old 15 dollar used game I want to make sure I use my time wisely. Reviews that only reflect one state of the game become worthless except for bragging rights for fans of it or a way to ridicule a console you dont own.

I see ignorant people using Driveclub as an example of a bad Sony game, but in reality it is currently the best gen 8 exclusive (should change in 8 days). Sony lost alot of sales it could have had over the holidays because it was half baked at launch, no reason someone buying a PS4 now should avoid the game because of its score.

this is what I do not get...

REVIEWS ARE NOT FOR THE PUBLISHERS. They are for US. IGN is not writing a review so Sony or MS can read to tell them how bad their game is. It is to inform  gamers about how they (being the reviewer) percieve the quality of a game.

Maybe this is what is wrong with reviews at the source. Websites are writing them to make a statement to the dev instead of what they should be doing... informing the consumers. And based on the responces in this thread we gamers are part of the problem because appartantly the majority want them to be a statement as opposed to know, a review to inform consumers. No need for a site to ensure their review reflects what is currently sitting on a store shelf...

Fair enough, I definitely see your point and I half-misunderstood you. I've seen a lot of complaining about review scores, and I am adamantly against broken games and justification for them being broken on release.

I also buy a lot of games months after they release to save money. Maybe a compromise is needed; for example releasing a second review score, say 6 months later, but still keeping the first score as well. I just don't believe in updating a score. Companies should be held accountable for their missteps.

See I think they would be held accountable even with an adjusted score. At launch is when a game is poised to sell the most games and if it is broken at launch and reviews poorly they will never get back many of those sales even if the gets fixed and reviews adjusted months down the road.