The game had a troubled launch but when all is said and done, it will be a much-improved, more stable product. Should critics respond?
Almost every new big video game could and should be reviewed again after 1-2 months after launch today because of patches.
Sorry but do you hear what you are saying? Does that mean every game should be re-reviewed whenever new DLC or an expansion is released? Patches to remove a few glitches, slightly improve performance,etc should not significantly change the score/verdict on a game. If that's what a review is based on then the review probably isn't worth reading.
Nope, but big dlc can get its own review smetimes since its an own product, bought seperately. Patches that help a game that had big problems before however which were responsible for a worse review rating should be important enough to update a review
Not really no. They should get the review they deserve on Launch day. If they release a broken game like unity or batman arkham knight, they shouldn't get a second chance here.
So that people that read a review weeks or months after a release still think that a game is plagued with the launch bugs? As someone who even reads reviews for 2-3 year old games before buying sometimes I would prefer updated reviews for updated games.
@Hoffmann "So that people that read a review weeks or months after a release still think that a game is plagued with the launch bugs?" Pretty much yes. Regardless of whether or not a game gets cleaned up post launch, there needs to be a penalty to keep devs from releasing broken products. We went decades with solid well built games because there was no safety net of a patch system in place, and now that safety net is being exploited & its the day one buyers who get penalized for their loyalty. Reviews should reflect the title's quality on release imo. Reviewers could update w/ a small explanation that certain bugs have been fixed since the launch, but the score should remain the same. There's really no reason for the litany of downgrades & bugs today, they are inherently anti consumer. Artists should perfect what they know they are capable of achieving, and toss out any failed systems. Reaching into realms they are unsure of in order to add another bullet point for the back of the box is detrimental to gamers, devs and publishers shouldn't be afforded the opportunity of revised scores if they couldn't be bothered to test properly before hand. I know online games are a different beast entirely so maybe there's some leeway that should be afforded there, but anything outside of that is just laziness.
No, They reviewed what they were given and that's it. It's not like it got bad reviews anyway.
No. Review updates send the message that publishers can release games in any state they want. Not singling out TW3 here, but on principle, no. Articles describing and praising the new updates with links in the review? Sure, but not new reviews.
You are talking sense, bravo ;) The best patch I have ever seen in a game was the removal of the letterbox/black bars from The Evil Within. Really improved the game in my eyes. Still doesn't deserve a re-review though.
Original review should always remain original. If they wish to link updates to that article then by all means, go ahead. It's about keeping the consumer informed. If the reviews change as fast as the updates come out, then it's pointless.
Every big AAA games will always have issues at launch.I'm surprised that TW3 didn't have more issues considering how ambitious it was.Batman AK had a thousand more issues on pc.TW3 is my top contender for GOTY.Then there's Batman AK,Fallout 4 etc.
Thing is, almost every review from major gaming sites didn't even bother to take into account the glitches that it launched with. So it'd be kind of pointless.
Why? It's not like it was a critical flop at launch, you want the score to get 93 instead of 92 or what? And the game was great from launch and CdPR just kept on improving it since
I also say no. 1-2 months after launch most people who were going to buy it, already have. The rest are probably waiting for it to hit the bargain bin and the difference between a 9.2 and a 9.4 isn't going to sway them. Reviewers have way too many games to review so this would be an endless and pointless effort.
Why,so they can give it near perfect scores.....again. The the title sounds almost implies the game scored bad,when it was exactlly the oposite,and after the patches and all the free Dlc that came out ,the game is in fact even better.
Not re-reviewed per se but updated maybe.. If they relate a broken game then it needs to be noted. If they fix it, should be noted as well..
*release (a broken game)
Huh? It got great reviews. Why should anyone re-review it? I can get they update their previous review stating certain bugs have been squashed, but there is no need to redo reviews. I mean I don't know, maybe to SOME morons, they think these numbers actually matter, and therefore it matters when placing it amongst the best games in history. Get over that crap. Enjoy the game, it reviewed well, CD Projekt Red made tons, and we are assured to get that Cyberpunk game in a few years. Besides, shouldn't the reviewer be out reviewing some other game? After all nowadays there seems to be about a few releasing every day.
Critics should always review games after major patches
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.