"How dare you review an early access game!?!"

[Fieldy409]

Hey so, I happened across this review while deciding whether or not to get Grounded. Ended up getting it to play with my friends, its fun but its so very very early that I can see it possibly being all said and done as soon as I get the best armour. Haven't experienced many errors though, just pathfinding issues for bugs sometimes. Basically its if the typical survival game like Rust/Ark/7 Days to Die were instead set inside the movie "Honey I Shrunk the Kids!"

What I want to talk about primarily is not the video or the game, but the common sentiment if you scroll down and look in the comments there, they're furious with IGN for reviewing an early access game too early.

but heres my view: It's a product, you buy it with your money, some people want to just have fun and reviews to tell you if its fun or not have value to a person who just wants to spend their hard earned cash on games that are fun now. I don't think its wrong at all to review a game in Early Access and find it a strange idea it shouldn't be done. Maybe when YOU buy an early access game you think of it less as buying a game and more as a kickstarter donation with benefits, and more power to you, but I think other people just want to have a fun game when they buy a game.

I feel like some other games have gotten away without being criticised a lot because of their "Its just an alpha/beta." for a very long time with versions so stable, feature rich and bug free that it gets to feel quite silly to call this an alpha. But they're selling them for money, making profit, and people are buying them just to play them. Yet you must always forgive the flaws far more than a complete game because they're just not finished yet!

What do you think?

 

[Hawki]

I think it's fair to review an early access game, as long as you specify it's early access. And if you're a website like IGN, probably a good idea to give an updated review with the full release.

 

[happyninja42]

If someone puts something out there for the public to consume, then it's fair game for criticism and review. I think it's only fair to acknowledge "hey it's still early, so maybe the flaws I've found in it will be hashed out." but if someone thinks that what is present so far, isn't all that impressive, well, that's what you get for making something for public consumption.

I mean hell, Early Access basically boils down to "Hey! Check out this thing I'm working on!" Ok well, I did check it out, and it needs work. That's perfectly fair and reasonable.

 

[BrawlMan]

Xbox fanboys act like bitches and get defensive, if you criticize the tiniest thing. But will criticize other games like crazy, if they're on a rival platform. I'm sure there are a couple of Steam fanboys in the comments too, but I bet most are from XONE players. When a game is out for the public, it's open for (legit) criticism and is not a immune because of some people's idiotic, selfish, arbitrary reasons. I hate IGN, and would like to see nothing more than for them to burn to the ground, but they have the right to review an early access game. We all do.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Xbox fanboys act like bitches and get defensive if you criticize the tiniest thing. But will criticize other games like crazy if they're on a rival platform. I'm sure there are a couple of Steam fanboys in the comments too, but I bet most are from XONE players. When a game is out for the public, it's open for (legit) criticism and is not a immune because of some people's idiotic, selfish, arbitrary reasons. I hate IGN, and would like to see nothing more than for them to burn to the ground, but they have the right to review an early access game. We all do.

That's because xbox fans dont get many games and they need to believe with all their tiny little hearts that their console has good shit on it. They know the truth but they cant handle the truth.

 

[tippy2k2]

Gamers have a stupid complain. We'll bring you more about this shocking development at 11, along with our stories about how "The Ocean is actually super big you guys" and "Is breathing required for humans to survive? The answer may surprise you".

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

If you's charging money for it and/or it's wanting your time, you damn right it's gonna get the critical eye.

 

[Nick Calandra]

We used to review Early Access stuff, but I mean, there's almost no point to it aside from providing impressions because they change so much week to week. I'd always recommend relying on User Reviews for this stuff.

 

[Dalisclock]

Put me in the camp of "If the devs feel it's finished enough to put out for sale(or even free download), it's finished enough to review". Yes, there's the caveat of "Well, it's not done yet" and that's why I almost never bother with Early Access games myself(I've made some exceptions but very rare ones) but at the same time, if it's out there in public, it's going to be judged, but by the public and reviewers and thems the breaks.

If you're just looking for feedback/fine tuning/QA, make it closed beta or something and don't charge for it, but trying to say "It'll be really good when it's done"(not everyone does this but it seems like a common EA defense) doesn't mean much if what's being shown now isn't up to scratch.

On the costumer side, it's a risk either way. Realize what you're buying may be a LONG way from completion(Factorio just reached 1.0 after 4 years but a lot of people seem to feel it was worth it, even in EA) or might be bare bones project and while you may be a vital part of helping something go from "Ok" to "Great" and watching it evolve along the way, there are plenty of examples of projects that never really get there(I don't think I need to list examples, we all know these games) and once you've paid there's no obligation for the project to reach 1.0 release soon or....well, ever. I guess there might be a legal case somewhere but someone else with more legal training then me(that being SOME) would have to weigh in on that(I imagine there's an "As Is" condition in the purchase agreement).

TL;DR It's far game to judge anything if it's on the market. "It's not done yet" is not a shield from criticism. Giving the devs constructive criticism might actually help the game get better someday(if they're inclined to listen) but criticism is warranted regardless.

 

[Agema]

snip

Personally, I'd call the "review" of an EA game a preview.

 

[Fieldy409]

It's nice to see people agreeing with me. Seeing most of the comments with thousands of likes on the video disagreeing was making me think I was the crazy one lol.

Personally, I'd call the "review" of an EA game a preview.

EA? Isn't Obsidian a Microsoft property?

We used to review Early Access stuff, but I mean, there's almost no point to it aside from providing impressions because they change so much week to week. I'd always recommend relying on User Reviews for this stuff.

Fair point. How long do reviews usually take to make anyway? If it took too long I suppose by the time you even publish it there could have been a patch.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

If the game is being sold for money then it's entirely fair to review it in the state it was at when you spent money on it.

You can and should specify that you're reviewing an early access product that is subject to change, and you can always update the review when (if) a full game comes out, but that doesn't preclude you being able to review a product that you purchased.

Also, if no one reviewed early access games then 90% of those games would never have reviews because they never end up being finished.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I can understand the sentiment if the game was nowhere near being complete (I imagine something like a game made by a few people on a small budget that need a lot of time to get everything working) and someone comes in and reviews it as if it were a completed game or something. But this clearly is not that kind of situation.

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

If its complete enough to charge for it its complete enough to review it. Honestly if you're going to say "its not complete" I'd say you should welcome reviews because they're going to point out flaws and bugs and things that you're going to need to do to actually complete it

 

[Dreiko]

If the concern is that a review can besmirch a game that is still in development, doing irreparable damage to its prospects in the process, I can definitely see that.

I can accept an exception if it's for a game that has been in early access for like, years and just sits there without showing much change.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

That's because xbox fans dont get many games and they need to believe with all their tiny little hearts that their console has good shit on it. They know the truth but they cant handle the truth.

It’s too bad that the height of Xbox as a brand and-counting was back when they rushed a broken console to market to get the jump on the competition. If they were smart they could’ve waited, because Sony botched their launch anyways. They had a good thing going. I even preferred the og Xbox over PS aside from the controller dpad and button feel, which is a minor and easily correctible thing.

But no, Microsoft just proved that they can’t follow through well enough with any idea outside of their bread n butter.

 

[MrCalavera]

Just treat them as Early Access Reviews, prone to changing the score later.

 

[Dalisclock]

If the concern is that a review can besmirch a game that is still in development, doing irreparable damage to its prospects in the process, I can definitely see that.

I can accept an exception if it's for a game that has been in early access for like, years and just sits there without showing much change.

If the devs are worried one poor review will destroy their game, maybe they put it in EA too early. You put it out there, you have to be prepared for some criticism.

Unless there's some notable case where it was poor reviews that sunk a game in early access rather then the game's own flaws.

 

[Dreiko]

If the devs are worried one poor review will destroy their game, maybe they put it in EA too early. You put it out there, you have to be prepared for some criticism.

Unless there's some notable case where it was poor reviews that sunk a game in early access rather then the game's own flaws.

Reviews have a sense of finality to them. We need a new thing, like a "first look" or something. I don't mind criticism, but reviewing early access is like having a top industry critic eat at a street food stand on its first day. It's a bit of an overkill. Let the guy climb up some first and then you can put them more thoroughly through their paces.

 

[BrawlMan]

We need a new thing, like a "first look" or something

There are plenty of YouTubers who already do that with a first look or impressions video. They tend to do those way more than most professionals in the industry.