Is It Okay To Change Review Scores?

OnlySP writes:

A few days ago, Polygon made quite the splash in gaming news circles when editor Russ Pitts updated his review of EA’s SimCity reboot, downgrading the score from 9/10 to 8/10 and once again to 4/10. He did this on the basis that the game’s servers, which players were required to connect to even in single-player, were inadequate for supporting the large number of people playing during launch.

This certainly wouldn’t be the first time a publication has changed their review score... However, this is definitely the most significant case of a review score change yet, since it has occurred in the wake of a game that, for all intents and purposes, functions and performed objectively differently upon release than it did in the hands of reviewers who played it early. From this, the following question can be raised:

“Is it okay for publication to change their review scores?”

[BullyMangler]

yyep . . like snake eater for the 3DS. one of the complaints was that it just didnt feel rite on the 3Ds's small screen . . but now the 3dS XL is out .

[guitarded77]

I think some games should get re-reviewed. Take a game like MAG for example. From beta to launch to 1 year after launch, it had changed so much technically, and in content, it was a completely different game. Not every game should be re-reviewed, but there are a few exceptions. Especially dynamic games which grow online.

[MikeMyers]

That's true. GT5 is another. It had a rocky start and over time and some updates later it became a much better game.

I think any game that can be fixed with a patch or games that have had serious upgrades should get re-reviewed.

How can you properly review SimCity if it isn't working like it's supposed to? What they should do is give it a low score until it's fixed and then have an updated review or postpone the review.

[Outside_ofthe_Box]

I say it's okay to change review scores if something major happens as in this case SimCity. I have no problem with a review site downgrading their score from a 9/10 to a 4/10 as the SimCity issue is major.

As for the MAG and GT5 examples, first off I'd like to say that I thought GT5 was a 9/10 from the start. Most websites refused to review it as a simulator. Going back on topic now, while I agree that both MAG and GT5 certainly improved over time I think it's a bit juvenile to change the scores. GT5 for example still got pretty good reviews across the board most ranging in the 8s it just didn't match the critical acclaim of it predecessors. I think it's a bit silly to go back and change the score from let's say an 8.5 to a 9. Imagine dozens of gaming websites changing scores by fractions of a point for dozens of games. Really unnecessary and most people aren't gonna care about a particular site changing a score up or down a point a year after release.

I don't mind score change, I just don't want it to be a normal thing. Scores should only change if something huge like the situation with SimCity occurs.

[rainslacker]

I think if they change it because of changes to the game, or like the example you mentioned, then sure, re-review it and get the word out.

If people pick up a game more after it's working, then maybe we'll see less buggy games on release day.:)

If they change their review because of commenter outcry, then no. A reviewer should stand by their score if they put one out there. Trying to appease the masses is not how one behaves as a critic...leaving out the obvious that some reviewers aren't really good at reviewing anymore of course.

[admiralvic]

Scores should N E V E R be changed. If anything, you should post a retraction that clarifies what is wrong and why it's wrong or simply do a new review. I only say this because games DO get patches (someimes new free stuff), which may impact the gameplay enough to justify a higher score. However, marking Simcity down for this is simply unprofessional. Logically EA will get the servers working, offer an online mode or work out something that resolves the problem. You shouldn't lower the score over something that literally HAS to fix, much less after you score it.

*waits for a bunch of disagrees because I didn't hate on Simcity*

[LOGICWINS]

"Scores should N E V E R be changed. If anything, you should post a retraction that clarifies what is wrong and why it's wrong or simply do a new review."

But if theres a new review, its more than likely that the score will change lol.

[BanBrother]

@admiral

Yes, but there have been times when reviewers have made mistakes in their review, and metacritic doesn't let them change it. So if a game is unfairly marked down by a mistake, and the reviewer acknowledges this, they should be able to change it.

Also, I think Simcity should be marked down for how poorly it is working now. Who cares if they fix it LATER? So many games are marked down because "it isn't worth the $60 price tag", but that argument becomes irrelevant 2 years later when the game is selling for $10.

EA screwed the pooch (and the sheep who pre-ordered it knowing there was always online DRM), so they should suffer in the review department.

I do agree that it is quite stupid to have to change a review a few times though.

[admiralvic]

@ BanBrother

I agree, which is why I mentioned a retraction, since that is exactly what a retraction is.

Perhaps I worded it a little poorly, I was saying in terms of changing the score to reflect the current situation. Perhaps put down a note saying that currently things aren't working, but to mark it down 5 points after you played a pretty good version of it seems wrong.

[mistertwoturbo]

Well to be fair, Polygon still kept a score History for all to see. It's not as nefarious as this article is making it out to be. Technically they didn't "CHANGE" the review score, but rather they "UPDATED" it to reflect the game. Which is good for the people reading the reviews because a game like SimCity in its current state, SHOULD NOT BE BOUGHT and DESERVES a 4/10. If Polygon left the review at a 9/10 with all the issues it has now, then it would look like they were paid off by EA or something.

The same could be said if a game launched at a 5/10, but ended up being so damn good later down the line maybe they could update it to a 8/10 or whatever.

[aLucidMind]

There should be two reviews on each game; one at release and one after all the patches are sent out and the rose-colored lenses (or corporate backing, depends on the reviewers *coughIGNcough*) are gone, which is usually a year or two later. That way you have a review of, say, Skyrim all buggy and (say Bethesda were to actually begin fixing bugs for their games for once) another after. It could really help with some games that really deserve more exposure but never got it because of bugs or other fixable flaws that pushed the score down.

[admiralvic]

The problem is how counter productive that would be.

Even if you did a review on the final version (DLC + patches included), a lot of these games would hit the "too cheap to care" point. I call it that, since typically anything with a lot score drops in price and will hit a point where people will pick it up because it's cheap / low enough to justify.

The other issue is how many elements can be worse. A lot of games get multiplayer modes, which end up dying after a few months. Some games, like NeverDead / Singularity / Binary Domain / Mindjack didn't have a strong start and so the onlines will be virtually unplayable at that point.

[Unicron]

That's one major problem with metacritic. They don't change scores. Games can be endlessly updated, why shouldn't reviews?

[admiralvic]

Relevance and lack of payoff.

After a game releases people generally stop looking, so even if you updated the review for each patch, the audience will get progressively smaller over time. Additionally, most sites don't have a vast number of people working for them, so revisiting a title every time or even every other time a patch comes out would be counter productive, since it's time they can spend posting new stuff (which will bring in hits) or review a new game.

[tweet75]

no a reviewer has a responsiblity to play a game throughougly before rating it. Once you rate it thats it.

[rainslacker]

While I agree, there is the issue that arose with SimCity. During the reviews and beta, there were no problems playing the game even with the DRM. But since release the game became unplayable, and to the consumer, with a recently released game, the actual review is misleading, and in this case plain wrong.

Not every game review should be changed, but there are times when circumstances dictate that it is the right thing to do.

If someone reviews a game, and genuinely likes it, but then later replays it for some reason and decides they were wrong in their initial impressions, then no, the review should stand.

[CaulkSlap]

Scores are just arbitrary numbers. There's no reason not to change them if the game changes with patches or the perception of it changes with time.

It's like cult classic movies that develop a following only years or decades later. They were critically the 7/10 generic games yet stood the test of time, while plenty of 9/10 popular garbage was forgotten. Why can't a publication change opinion later down the line?

As for Simcity, even without the DRM fiasco, the game is a steaming pile of crap. Every design choice was around making it multiplayer centric and virtually no game mode customization options. With always on DRM there won't even be a modding scene to correct the developers failures. \

[IQUITN4G]

My initial 30 minute impressions of me playing the Bayonetta demo left me with an absurd opinion that it was total bollacks and not worth anyone's money. So yes clearly it's ok to change your mind on these things because ignorance can often play hugely into our thinking. And tbh it doesn't hit you just how good Bayonetta truly is for example until you've played it to completion a couple of times- how many people with an apparently well informed opinion would have done just that for example

[BillySpandex]

I strongly believe that changing review scores post-review is dishonest, and should be discouraged. The review itself must be left as it is, HOWEVER.... I think you may editorialise afterwards. If for some reason you disagree with one of your reviewers write an editorial.

But changing review scores to suit a zeitgeist, that's disgusting. Polygon needs to feel our anger.