Poll: The Re-Review

[StriderShinryu]

Yes, this topic is spawned from some recent developer comments about the new SimCity, but it's not specifically about SimCity. Anyway..

I'm curious what everyone thinks about the subject of re-reviewing games, or at least taking a second look at or updating original reviews.

Times used to be that, outside of being semi-frequent in PC gaming once online connectivity became commonplace, what you got on Day 1 in the box was the game in it's totally finished and playable state. Now, however, patches and updates are common from Day 1 onwards in even your standard console title. It's very rare to see a game in it's completed state as soon as you boot it up for the first time. Even in single player story based experiences, the game on the first day may not be the same as the game a week later. In fact, even if a week holds through, it almost certainly won't be the same as the game a year later given that we now live in the age of DLC.

Personally, I like the idea of taking a second look at a title a but down the line. Often things can change for the better, from bugs being ironed out to content bereft releases being added to with expansion content. I don't, however, think any second looks should over write the original impressions.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Yep. I want to know the state of the game at the time I want to buy it, not about launch problems it might've had 6 months ago. What fucking use to me is that information?

Oh that cracks me up. Pray tell, when were those times?

Also, this. Anyone who thinks launching buggy games is a product of the DLC generation only is delusional. We still got buggy/broken games back in the day. Then, you had to wait MONTHS for a fix, if you ever got a fix at all.

 

[Smertnik]

Yep. I want to know the state of the game at the time I want to buy it, not about launch problems it might've had 6 months ago. What fucking use to me is that information?

Exactly. What's the point of keeping older review versions around? If we look at a more extreme example like TF2 and assume it still cost money to whom would a review written at launch with all the complaining about the lack of content and praising of the consistent art style be useful? That version literally doesn't exist anymore.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well if the first review is structured properly and not just blowing artsy smoke up someones ass then all you need is an update on previous points, if there is something to update that is.
And yes that should be done because games can get better or worse with patches, not to mention how all this micro DLC slips under the table with near no content and absurd prices that no one dares talk about.

 

[veloper]

Yep. I want to know the state of the game at the time I want to buy it, not about launch problems it might've had 6 months ago. What fucking use to me is that information?

Exactly. What's the point of keeping older review versions around? If we look at a more extreme example like TF2 and assume it still cost money to whom would a review written at launch with all the complaining about the lack of content and praising of the consistent art style be useful? That version literally doesn't exist anymore.

Keep the old piece around for the sake of integrity. Add a link to the new review, but also stand by your previous words.

Games being released in beta stage is becoming a bad habit among game companies. Even after the late fix, a reminder will do justice.

 

[DoPo]

Oh that cracks me up. Pray tell, when were those times?

Also, this. Anyone who thinks launching buggy games is a product of the DLC generation only is delusional. We still got buggy/broken games back in the day. Then, you had to wait MONTHS for a fix, if you ever got a fix at all.

Yeah, I'm with you there. I don't even know where that idea comes from - either people do remember older games and know it's wrong or they don't, in which case they wouldn't even be saying how games were "back in the day". Heck, most of why I don't preorder or even buy shortly after launch is because so many games tended to be horribly broken upon release. And I'm talking about "you can't progress further in the story" or "you need to restart" types of bugs. And of course not having the luxury or fast and easy internet access, I'd have to wait to buy a gaming magazine, which came out monthly, and had CDs with patches (as well as other stuff) with it. So a "fast patch" would probably take a couple of weeks to get to me, at least.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Yeah, I'm with you there. I don't even know where that idea comes from - either people do remember older games and know it's wrong or they don't, in which case they wouldn't even be saying how games were "back in the day". Heck, most of why I don't preorder or even buy shortly after launch is because so many games tended to be horribly broken upon release. And I'm talking about "you can't progress further in the story" or "you need to restart" types of bugs. And of course not having the luxury or fast and easy internet access, I'd have to wait to buy a gaming magazine, which came out monthly, and had CDs with patches (as well as other stuff) with it. So a "fast patch" would probably take a couple of weeks to get to me, at least.

I still remember when Ultima IX's 300 odd game-breaking, plot-stopping bugs got patched and replaced with 200 new game-breaking, plot-stopping bugs. That was SPECIAL. Ah, back in the day. Good times.

There, I've reached my daily quota of rueful Ultima IX references.

 

[Fappy]

Reviews are made to inform consumers. If there's reason to make a new review after significant changes have been made to a game then by all means. I've been thinking about reviewing the current state of Mass Effect 3's multiplayer, though I haven't played it much recently. The multiplayer's changed a lot since launch.

 

[Comocat]

As long as a reviewer is clear on the state of the product they are reviewing, it don't think the onus is on them to do more work because the developers cut corners to get a game out. If you want your review to have meaning six months from now, sure you can revisit it, but I don't expect anyone to do so.

 

[Doom972]

I think that it's a waste of the reviewer's time (he should be reviewing new games), and that it's a bad idea because it encourages the practice of shipping out unfinished games.

 

[krazykidd]

All of this takes time and money ( assuming we are talking about professional reviews) and quite frankly i would rather someone review something new than something old . We have player reviews ( like on the escapists or game faqs for example ) for that.

 

[Rednog]

If a big chunk of the original review is about technical issues with the game or things that have been fixed post review, I think at the very least there should be a note at the top that says something along the lines of "This review was written when the following issues were prevalent, since then these have been resolved. Please continue reading knowing the review may not reflect the current state of the game."
That said, I do think that reviews that focus primarily on technical issues over actual gameplay/story/etc are pretty piss poor to begin with.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

Oh that cracks me up. Pray tell, when were those times?

Also, this. Anyone who thinks launching buggy games is a product of the DLC generation only is delusional. We still got buggy/broken games back in the day. Then, you had to wait MONTHS for a fix, if you ever got a fix at all.

Yeah, I'm with you there.

All three of you seem to have missed the point entirely. It's not that old games weren't buggy, it's that what you got on day 1 was what you got, bugs and all.

 

[daveman247]

Depends really. Reviewers time is probably better spent reviewing new stuff. Maybe like some said a little addendum at the end to explain if anything been fixed would be nice. But after a few months there is ALWAYS a whole host of user-reviews that you can read and discern for yourself what the games really like.

 

[Thoughtful_Salt]

Well, Retro reviews are always in vogue, and a look back at an older game, even if the critical opinion of it has shifted vastly from your point of view at the time, can be valuable. That said, some care must be taken, blind praise and blind butchery in re-reviews or retro reviews happens often, with no valid critical discussion. What happened with Sim City and its reviews will, unfortunately, mostly come down to its launch problems, regardless of the actual quality of the game, which is why a look back at the game once all or most of the technical issues have been sorted out is often more valid than a review on launch. THink about it from a future perspective, if someone wants to play the game in 2025 and looks up reviews saying it has vast technical issues, even if said issues have been fixed totally, then the game may potentially lose a player, or the player can no longer trust reviews after that point if his rig works fine.

 

[piinyouri]

Also, this. Anyone who thinks launching buggy games is a product of the DLC generation only is delusional. We still got buggy/broken games back in the day. Then, you had to wait MONTHS for a fix, if you ever got a fix at all.

Which is certainly true.
However I do feel that being able to patch games much more easily has led to a more lazy attitude toward the development.
(No big deal, we'll get it post release et)

I won't argue that it is good they can fix these problems easier than in the past, but it shouldn't be so relied upon in my opinion.

 

[Joccaren]

No, as bowing down to developers and publishers and saying "Yeah, OK, now it works and is better" is just telling them its fine to release a game that doesn't work to start with. If it don't work to start with, you did something wrong, and you can expect to get flak for it.

Besides, where would we draw the line?
Could Blizzard ask for a re-review of WoL now that they've released 50 balance patches or so?
Could Bethesda ask for a re-review of Skyrim thanks to the DLC and bug fixes?
What about Diablo 3 with the extra content its added in?

Updates are common place nowdays, and if we did this every game would need a re-review after 6 months, and another after another six months ect. until the devs stopped supporting it. Additionally, it would encourage releasing half broken games 'cause the review will just get fixed later. No, you make your game at the start, you make it work at the start, and you release content in big loads that can be reviewed on their own like half the Skyrim DLC probably can.

 

[Joccaren]

I don't think publishers want low scores to begin with and then have a higher score because a game sells the most when it just released and you don't want low scores at that time.

Personally I think you should be able to edit reviews to tell everyone that the problems have been fixed.

Developers also probably don't want their game to be released in an unplayable state either, yet they do because they are out of time and they can just fix it after release. Its like going to school; no student WANTS to hand in a report worth an E, yet if you tell them that they can hand it in there and then and get an E, but revise it later and get a new mark, they'll do it because they're either out of time with lots of work to hand in, or just feel like taking it easy for a bit and making up for it later.
Developers, despite wanting to release a good game, aren't given the time to do so. Hence, they settle for "Alright, I'll make it work [Somewhat], and fix it up properly later". Saying "Yeah, that's ok, we'll forgive you" doesn't help. Saying "No, this is your only chance" gets them to try and work harder to actually make a game that works, and tells the publisher that's pushing them that maybe if they want the game to go down in history with a good review score they should give it a bit more time.

Anyone who is interested in the game can find out if the issues have been fixed by news articles saying "These issues have been fixed". Re-reviewing the game though is unnecessary, and just removes a permanent stain against the game for publishers to say "It doesn't matter" to.

 

[O maestre]

It depends on the game.. Skyrim is nowhere the same as it was at launch in functionality or features. But mostly a re-review would be useful for mmo's that are usually constantly changing and evolving as time passes.

 

[The Harkinator]

Not so much a re-review, but another look back on the game and a check up on parts of the game that were good or bad but don't reveal themselves upon a quick playthrough needed for a review. Hindsight is, as they say, 20-20 vision so with longer to play a game and some hindsight a second look at a game would be very good.