Top
60°

Should Critics Issue New Reviews for The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt?

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?

The story is too old to be commented.
Hoffmann888d ago (Edited 888d ago )

Almost every new big video game could and should be reviewed again after 1-2 months after launch today because of patches.

robtion888d ago

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.

Hoffmann888d ago

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

TonyPT888d ago

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.

Hoffmann887d ago

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.

jb227885d ago

@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.

wheresmymonkey888d ago

No, They reviewed what they were given and that's it. It's not like it got bad reviews anyway.

Blues Cowboy888d ago (Edited 888d ago )

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.

robtion888d ago

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.

Chaosdreams888d ago

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.

Bruno1886888d ago

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.

Show all comments (20)
The story is too old to be commented.