Maybe have a temp score. Like say: "This game gets a 5, with all the bugs. I'll bump it up to a 7. Once the patch fixes the bugs." Then the article/video is updated after the fact.

I'm not sure what your point is about game-breaking bugs and reviews. If the reviewer runs into one, sure, but they probably won't, as they typically only affect a relatively small amount of people. The more complex a game, the more likely it is that devastating bugs will be missed.

Also, you say "sod graphics" then complain about graphics. Which is it?

Anyway, what you're really saying here is that developers should stop making complicated open-world games. The Witcher 3 was filled with bugs, including the game-breaking variety. What do you think it should have been scored? Do you think they should have made a linear yet polished game instead? If the game had scored low and it killed The Witcher franchise, would you have been happy with that?

Totally agreed, all reviews should be updated after 3/4 months in case of massive changes, them beeing negative (see Fallout 4) or positive (see Splatoon)

As someone who tends to buy video games months or even years after their release, I couldn't disagree more. The review score will not reflect the state that the game is in and that won't help me decide whether a game is worth my time or not.

I think story, gameplay, graphics, voice acting, fun factor, among other things are much more important than things that eventually get fixed. Especially when a game has a day-one patch.

It may be easier to avoid glitches and bugs when you make a simple game like most ninty or indie games, but not with games like Skyrim, Fallout 4 and GTA 5. Even Assassin's Creed games are huge and some bugs are to be expected in the first month or so, no matter how much time they spend testing them. The reviews of unity don't represent the current product with all the patches.

Whether forum people realise it or not, most gamers don't read entire reviews, they just look at the scores. And while something like an annoying bug can, and most likely will, get fixed eventually, things like the story never change. I'm not saying don't penalise them for that (there are examples like Unity, Driveclub), just that the score doesn't help people who are interested in the game, just not day 1.

b-b-but... ME3... (jk)

Honestly, who cares? I mean, as long as a review mentions any technical issues the person writing it ran into, does it matter if it's reflected in the score?

As an example;

A reviewer plays Fallout 4, mentions the technical issues and doesn't take them into account when giving the game it's score. He/She gives it a 8.5

Or, That same reviewer writes an identical review, but takes the technical issues into account when giving the score. Gives the game and 8.

What changes? Are you suddenly more informed as a consumer? You how the reviewer feels about the game either way because you have their actual words to go by.

Seriously, people put way too much stock in review scores.

Absolutely agree with you. Maybe not 2 points, but at least 1 should be deduced if the game is in the shape F4 was at launch.

The only ones I can think of are those who base their opinions on review scores.  If someone read the actual reviews for titles like Fallout 4 or the Witcher 3, they'd know those games have bugs but the reviewers thought they were very good games that were worth playing regardless.

Publishes absolutely should be held accountable for the quality of a game's build. A game's score should take everything into the account, including the quality of the game itself, and excessive bugs should damage the game's score. Hold their feet to the fire.