If a game has an awful release but becomes great after patches...

[DraQ]

Jesus fuck Codex, what happened to you, 86% POSITIVELY votes? HOW THE FUCK WOULD THAT EVEN HAPPEN today, with reviews coming out BEFORE the game or at worst shortly after?

Are reviewers in your universe psychic?


Because you can only take patches into account once they've been released (but once they have you should).

 

[Zarniwoop]

Are reviewers in your universe psychic?


Because you can only take patches into account once they've been released (but once they have you should).

Exactly my point. How would games be rated "positively after patches" when the rating is done well before any patches are released?

 

[zwanzig_zwoelf]

The only problem with 'reviews after patching' is the fact that buggy games don't necessarily get the patches they need.
Either because the publisher is a retard who's happy with the cash flow as it is, or because the devs are lazee lardasses.
Or both.

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

This is a minor thing in Wasteland 2 DC, where they introduced a very console-y prompt whenever you wanted to interact with things that required skills. In vanilla WL2 you'd have to actually use some thought. Otherwise, WL2 DC is better in every other way.

That is a convenience feature, since you couldn't use wrong skill in wrong place anyways.
Rest is matter of savescumming calculating the odds.

As for the thread question: reviewers should review what they got.
Not nebulous mods/patches will fix it stuff.
Amendments can be published later.

 

[tormund]

Game should be rated as it is. If there are substantial changes and improvements later, then the review and rating should be adjusted.
Sadly, most sites would never do something like that. Those that try to approach this issue, like I previously mentioned with Eurogamer, would rather either delay reviews or choose to give minimal space and impact to technical and gameplay issues that look like they can be fixed trough patching. That sort of approach is IMO unfair to the customer.

One thing that isn't helping is that Metacritic is still THE standard for score and review aggregation, and they only accept initial scores from each publication and refuse to adjust them in the case that any publication changes their review and score.

 

[Saark]

Are reviewers in your universe psychic?


Because you can only take patches into account once they've been released (but once they have you should).

Exactly my point. How would games be rated "positively after patches" when the rating is done well before any patches are released?

By revisiting the game after a period of time has passed and giving it another review? That's how journalism usually works, if something somewhere has significantly changed they should write about it. it cuts both ways obviously, if a patch manages to fuck up the entire game by screwing around with the balance or makes certain quests impossible to complete and the developer does not care to fix those bugs the review should be 'reviewed'.

 

[Zarniwoop]

Are reviewers in your universe psychic?


Because you can only take patches into account once they've been released (but once they have you should).

Exactly my point. How would games be rated "positively after patches" when the rating is done well before any patches are released?

By revisiting the game after a period of time has passed and giving it another review? That's how journalism usually works, if something somewhere has significantly changed they should write about it. it cuts both ways obviously, if a patch manages to fuck up the entire game by screwing around with the balance or makes certain quests impossible to complete and the developer does not care to fix those bugs the review should be 'reviewed'.

It "should", sure. But it doesn't work like that usually. And even if it does, most morons buy games on or before release (just check the Codex's piss-poor performance on FO4 if you doubt me), so a much later review will have little to no effect. The only people who will notice are the the ones who actually bother to go back to old reviews to see if they've been changed.

 

[Saark]

It would be useful for all those people that don't buy in to the hyped up shittyass previews you yourself previously mentioned. If a game is on sale 6 months after its shit-quality release but has been patched to be enjoyable by now I would like to know and get it. Obviously it doesn't work like that but if some site were to actually do that I myself would certainly read up on games there.

 

[Leechmonger]

...how should it be rated?

On release? Badly.

If it improves later, reviewers are under no obligation to publish a second review. If they do update their reviews, great! If they don't, it's up to word of mouth to get sales up.

Release games in decent condition or get fucked.

 

[pippin]

There's a problem here, because most new(er) games suffer from being ushed by publishers so optimization is shit and bugs are unbearable. It's been happening since the first real 3d games in the late 90s, where hardware and software became really complex.
GOTY editions are just an excuse to have all the expansions and/or dlc. That means a GOTY edition doesn't guarantee a good game, because a bad game with dlcs is still a bad game.

I've been guilty of D1Ps in the recent past but even when I buy games at day one I kinda know you have to wait at least a month for patches and shit.

 

[Severian Silk]

RoA remake was horrible at launch.















After months of patches it's still shit.

 

[Daemongar]

Daggerfall was impossible to complete out of the box, so we're speaking of a rather massive jump in quality.

It was such a massive jump, folks seem to look back on that game as a classic, and seem to forget all about the horrific, horrible release.

 

[sser]

Civilization IV was tremendously bad at release. Patches helped a lot, but it was the expansions that finally got it over the hump.

Empire: Total War was completely busted at release. Patches didn't really help. Some people say this same thing happened with Rome II, but patches did help. I don't believe them.

Both of those games got positive reviews when they really should not have. I can't really think of a "low tier" game getting a bounce back from patches. Reviewers are much more unfriendly toward them so they tend to get sunk instantly for their hubris.


There are inverse scenarios. PC Gamer once reviewed some strategy game and gave it like a 90% or whatever. However, they later amended it to a much lower grading as the released version was completely broken by a patch or something. Wish I could remember the name of it.

 

[Ismaul]

Only idiots play games at release, since games have a habit of coming out in beta state. Sure, that doesn't make the early releases excusable, but a wise man adapts.

For me, a post-patches review is more relevant and indicative of final quality.

 

[typical user]

Usually if the game has a potential then I rate it positively. The potential in mechanics, good story, entertainment as a whole. XCOM 2 is a good example, TotalBiscuit said in one of his viedos that this game is worth every nickel and he admitted the version he has is riddled with bugs and has optimization issues. This still can be fixed with patches.

Unless we are dealing with incompetence and game-breaking bugs. Or if the game is lacking but receives an overhaul under "complete edition". Wasteland 2 is rated poorly but Director's Cut brings it on an acceptable level and people will recommend that version instead.

So fps drops, long loading times, glitchy psychics is not a big deal as I played some games in 10fps. Not that like I would accept 10fps on my high-end rig but if it bearable then I will hand-wave it. Unless it is Bethesda, those fuckers take forever to release patches which fix nothing and break more so they just wait for their community to fix their stuff, whether that is broken main quest, unable to be completed or retarded design choice on certain game mechanic.

But the problem is that most reviews which take place shortly after games release tend to be inaccurate on what we have in our hands. Fallout: New Vegas was rated as an "ok" game because it wasn't that much hyped like Fallout 3 but right now people are praising it everywhere because they played the game, they took their time with it. Same deal with GTA V or Witcher 3. Some people will correctly point their flaws. Or any game really. DLCs can really change how the game feels like. Like Reaper of Souls expansion for Diablo 3. Previously everyone said that fans of Diablo 2 should stay away from that game but after RoS was released they say otherwise.

That's actually a challlenge to rate a game properly because reviewers can also be influenced by "hype train".

 

[Average Manatee]

There's something to be said about the scope of the game. For a game like Daggerfall the bar for polish and lack of bugs can be set pretty low I think. For a game like Fallout 4 the bar is about midway, there's not nearly as much dynamic shit and there's a far smaller world with less to do, but you still have a fully 3d world that you can jump and shit around. For the modern cover based FPS with small areas and being tied to the floor without ability to jump, any bugs or performance problems should be treated pretty fucking harshly.

 

[Hyperpube]

Negatively at first, then, Positively for fixing the negative points.
Isn't it obvious?

To me it seems obvious. I don't understand how any other way makes more sense

 

[rhophiehalul78]

It should be rated separately. The base game is different from the patched game after all.

 

[adrix89]

You can either have polished turds.
Or you can have diarrhea shit with a gem inside.

A good game takes a lot of time and money to make that is not suited to the realities of our market.
Publishers will always shit all over good games and even independents have reality knocking at its door.
The fact that sometimes we can get eventually a good game in any amount of time is a testament that there is still hope.

What are we going to do? Play the mainstream polished turds?
If we want new stuff and not be in a perpetual dream of the good old days then all we can do is digg in shit for that little gem.
Mods are a godsend.

 

[Spectacle]

There's a problem here, because most new(er) games suffer from being ushed by publishers so optimization is shit and bugs are unbearable. It's been happening since the first real 3d games in the late 90s, where hardware and software became really complex.
GOTY editions are just an excuse to have all the expansions and/or dlc. That means a GOTY edition doesn't guarantee a good game, because a bad game with dlcs is still a bad game.

I've been guilty of D1Ps in the recent past but even when I buy games at day one I kinda know you have to wait at least a month for patches and shit.

The late 90's is also when the internet made mass distribution of patches simple. Before that a buggy game would be buggy forever, and gamers and reviewers would treat it as such.

 

[Baron Dupek]

Like what happened when Playstation2 (and his generation, 7th? 8th?) went into full online with PS3.
Put disc in, need to install the game + download patches.
No more "put disc and play".

 

[Zarniwoop]

The late 90's is also when the internet made mass distribution of patches simple. Before that a buggy game would be buggy forever, and gamers and reviewers would treat it as such.

No, before that games were FINISHED before the release date.

 

[pippin]

The late 90's is also when the internet made mass distribution of patches simple. Before that a buggy game would be buggy forever, and gamers and reviewers would treat it as such.

No, before that games were FINISHED before the release date.

It was at that point when complaining about games not being entirely finished and having to wait for patches became a common complaint. Issues of CGW had people asking themselves if releasing games in such broken state would destroy the PC gaming industry.

 

[United Nations]

This is a stupid fucking thread because these types of games are hard to find.

There should be a metacritic (or other online rater) rating system that tracks media reviews over a long period of time to show trends.

I would say that this would be a lot easier with movies because they don't require much upkeep, but games could work too, even though their trend rating would be most based on post-release updates.

 

[United Nations]

For the record, I really liked the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series, but can't play vanilla.

With mod(s) installed, they can be the best games ever... Except for Clear Sky that is.