Should Reviews Stay Final Anymore?

Back in the days of the NES, heck, back in the days of the Xbox, Gamecube and PS2, games were shipped as a whole package. Once a game had gone gold, it was done. If you bought the game, you got what you paid for. Reviews reflected that. Fable got a 9.3 from IGN. Metal Gear Solid: Snake Eater got an 8.7 from Gamespot.

But now, in an age where downloadable content is sometimes as big as the games they support, developers can drastically improve a game after its release. A game's controls can be improved, made tighter. Pop-in can be reduced, and framerates steadied. Entire plot lines can be added at the drop of a hat.

All of this raises the question. When a game is shipped, is it ready for a "final" score? Or should reviewers be allowed to change their scores, based on drastic improvements? If a game such as Spiderman 3 had been given an update to improve it's many graphical glitches and framerate drops. Should a reviewer be allowed to change their past score to reflect that? If Alone in the Dark were given a much needed control overhaul, could its score be raised from a 3.5 to a 6 (ign)?

This may not be a really big deal as of yet, but I predict in the future, more games will be fixed and tweaked after release. There's those of you out there that may feel that if the game was released as a glitchy mess, the developers should just have to deal with the scores, sometimes though, they're forced to send out a crap product due to a publisher's demands. I just think that in the near future, review scores shouldn't be set in stone. Heck, even now game scores should be allowed to fluctuate. And it is my belief that the developers deserve at least a little credit if they're really trying to improve what they've created.

P.S. I also think PC game scores should have been allowed to change for years. I'm just focusing on consoles in this post.

[BlackCountryBob]

I think you make a good point about the fluid nature of games and the solid nature of reviews. I think that honestly the real jump should be to get rid of review scores all together. However, I am unsure that it would make any real difference TBH as the only time reviews get any attention is at launch when a bad review sees the game disappear of shelves swiftly. The problem will be getting sites to convince media sources to go back to games months or years after release to do reviews instead of writing big publicity seeking reviews of new games. User reviews will have to fill in the gaps.

Also worth thinking about would be if games that receive sequels (especially yearly Madden/FIFA games) should have their review scores moved up or down to show if the follow up improves upon it or not (these games geting 9/10 year after year makes a decision difficult). Also, what about older games; a launch game like Resistance FOM deserved a 85% at the time but 2 years on in a post COD4 world, should it be notched down to show how it compares to the best and most recent.

Just some ideas from me, interesting post though which should get much more consideration than it will get on this site.

[Aclay]

I don't think that a older game should have it's review score dropped just because a more newer game comes out and delivers even more. It's only natural that as time progresses, newer games will make games that came out a year or two ago look like they have no competition at all, but that doesn't mean that a game that came out a year ago should have it's review score dropped just because something newer and better came out a year or two later.

If it was possible for a review score to get dropped, Halo 3 probably would be at around 85% on Metacritic right now because when you compare it to COD4, and upcoming shooters like KZ2 and Resistance 2, it's like those upcoming shooters are in a whole different leauge than Halo 3 in terms of graphics, scale, and technology implemented in the game.

[Ozzyb]

I don't think review revisions should include comparisons to other games. Rather, just a comparison to the game itself, as it was previously. If we were to rate games at later dates, compared to newer games, great games would eventually prove to fizzle in the shadow of better development tools and technology.

[Reibooi]

The reviews in some cases should be changed. However at the same time they should not. Just because a developer can now patch a game doesn't mean they should ship a game with problems. They should get it right the first time around. Imagine the people who don't have access to the internet. Yes I know that seems silly but there are still alot of them out there. For them the game will remain the same after the patch because they have no way to access the patch. If the dev did the job they were meant to do this would not be a problem.

It really is kinda mixed but to be honest I think Reviews as a whole are broken. If I had based my purchases on the reviews I read I would have missed out on some of my favorite games of all time.

[Aclay]

Sometimes I think that DLC has made developers a little lazy this generation because they know that they can always go back and release a patch for a game or something after the final game is shipped, but Last Gen. with the PS2, it was like developers strove to deliver the best the first time around and really they had no choice but to deliver the first time because there was no second chances last Gen.

But, I do think that a game should be Re-Reviewed if a developer releases a patch for it to fix certain issues with the game though.

[Stickguy259]

I actually never considered dropping past review scores. I don't actually think that it should be done, but it's an interesting idea.

One thing that I left out of my post because it didn't fit in fluidly was that perhaps reviewers could add a new blurb at the end of an already written review, that would detail certain things that had changed with a patch. And perhaps add a "new" review score in the blurb.

Just a thought.

[Ozzyb]

Gamespot gave MGS3 an 8.7?? Wow, I did NOT know that. I DO NOT want whatever they are smoking. That is utter non-sense and you'll be hard-pressed to find many people who disagree with me.

As for game reviews.. I think they should definitely leave the door open for the possibility of a revision or update. I don't think a potentially great game should be damned, if the developers recognize the problems and address them relatively >>QUICKLY<< (A year later, the ship has sailed and you've most likely proven that you don't care too much). Like I said in your Valve-related blog, if they patched Orange Box (PS3), even this late in the game.. I'd be happy and would not hold it against them.

I don't think they should drop scores, but they should show you the previous score, current score and what was revised to merit the change in opinion. If the developers are working hard, the least we can do is give them another chance. We know a lot of it is about the money.. but many of them really pour their hearts out into their games and should be treated as such.

[pixelsword]

If the game changed because of a patch, and the patch addresses the problems, the game's score should be adjusted, as the reasons for the score no longer applies.

[konchu]

At its root I do not think a review should not change for a final retail game. Now I do think its fair if say a review copy goes out that really isn't the final game aka an honest mistake then I say its cool to change a score but it must be completely explained why. I think the answer for DLC is review the DLC itself. I wouldn't even mind in the case of Alone in the Dark for 360 having a re-review at the time of patch as long as it is kept along side the original review and the new review mentions the previous issues and how they were fixed, really a review of the patch itself. This would still keep the offline gamers safe if they know they need to download a patch. But the original scores should pretty much remain there forever.

Old game score should not be altered for historical purposes. But a review featured of how it stands up now vs then might be an interesting read. I mean there are tons of games I loved as a kid that are crap by todays standards and some that are timeless.