How should PC games be reviewed?

[dagens24]

With all the rage over RAGE (PC version), I began to ask myself 'how should a reviewer handle reviewing a PC game?' Specifically the technical side of it; should reviewers review based upon how the game runs on a top of the line system, a mid range system or a low grade system? If they had a headache getting the game to run or kept running into annoying non-gameplay related technical issues should that be reflected in the score? I've never really thought about that aspect of reviewing a PC game, what do you all think?

For example; I recently bought The Witcher 2 on Steam after reading all kinds of rave reviews. I checked my system specs before hand and met the RECOMMENDED system specs so I thought I was good to go. I buy the game, download it and it fails to instal properly... After 2 more downloads and instal failures it finally runs and what do I get, massive amounts of input lag and low FPS on my recommended graphics level. So I exit, lower all the settings to the lowest and still the problem persists. Now, if I were to review this game which runs terribly on my system, is it my reponsibility to review it without factoring in the technical issues or should that be included in my review thereby lowering the score dramatically. What do you think?

 

[brainslurper]

It should be reviewed with a system of the recommended tech specifications always put out by the devs. Too powerful and you are being unfair to the buyer- too weak and you are being unfair to the dev

 

[Wuggy]

It should be reviewed with a system of the recommended tech specifications always put out by the devs. Too powerful and you are being unfair to the buyer- too weak and you are being unfair to the dev

Yep, pretty much this.

I would add that a reviewer should always put up the actual specs their computer has, perhaps specifically mention if the game should be played with a cutting edge computer (like Witcher 2 preferably should).

I'd also like to see the reviewers point out how much of a "port" the game is. Like, variety of graphical options and that sort of stuff.

 

[dagens24]

If they had technical issues should that be factored into their score?

 

[Smooth Operator]

It should be reviewed on a decent machine within dev specified parameters, and there should never ever be a score.

The review should simply mention all the issues that came up during the game, preferably even when they will be fixed.

 

[Jordi]

It should be reviewed with a system of the recommended tech specifications always put out by the devs. Too powerful and you are being unfair to the buyer- too weak and you are being unfair to the dev

I think this is the ideal case. It will also give the devs some incentive to be honest about the required specs. Also, I think the minimum requirements (in addition to the recommended ones) should be tested and it should be mentioned how bad the game sucks with those specs if it runs at all.
On the other hand, I think most reviewers won't really have the resources to buy one or two new computers for every game they review just so they can match the specs that the developer put on the box. Big reviewers might be able to approximate it by having a bunch of computers so that they are able to approximate those specs, but I think a lot of reviewers will have just one computer.
This isn't really that bad, I think, as long as the reviewer is clear about what he uses. This just means that you will have to read multiple reviews, or a review from someone who matches your specs, which is a good idea anyway.

Should technical issues be reflected in the score?
I think they should be explicitly mentioned. If you must have a score, I prefer to have different scores for different aspects of the game, and these issues should probably be one category. If you do want one total score for the game, I think it should be for the game running as intended, with a probability attached that the game will actually run like that. If a large percentage of the people will be able to run the game without problems, then there is no reason to taint the score with issues that they won't have.

 

[Cavan]

A PC game should be reviewed with: incalculable bias, irreparable egotism, impossible stocks of misinformation/misrepresentation or misunderstanding, followed by indomitable cynicism and to top it all off impractical levels of thoughtlessness.

Don't forget to rush.

Anyway, how reliable the game should be mentioned but it should not be included in the main review.

 

[Jandau]

Game performance should definitely be taken into account. Even console reviews give games negative points if they suffer framerate drops.

As for what machine should a game be tested on, optimally on a minimum machine and a reccomended machine. Barring that, on reccomended or better. It's something PC gamers learn fast - minimum specs are misleading 99% of the time and you should expect to need more for a smooth experience.

That being said, Rage seems to me like a different case. It's apparently a matter of the developer failing to optimize their game properly for a whole line of graphics cards (namely, the ATI) and this is no minor oversight. This is a major blunder. The fact that they provide ZERO options for downscaling graphics to accomodate people with weaker machines is poor work on their part as well, and the constant texture pop-in is inexcuseable. I don't mind a bit of a pop-in, but most games tend to "remember" a texture once its loaded. Rage "forgets" it as soon as you look away and has to reload it if you look back one second later. This is just poor work.

Rage's technical issues are a direct result of bad work by the developer. They should count in reviews.

 

[CleverNickname]

Technical issues should be mentioned and/or reflected in the score if they can be reliably reproduced on several machines. Plenty of those around. Installation troubles are hardly ever one of them. Besides, that's not part of the game - it's as relevant as the color scheme on the disc.

Rage seems to be on a whoooole different level of tech screwup. But I also don't remember New Vegas getting points deducted for... just plain sucking on a technical level...