Assassin’s Creed Unity, Batman Arkham Knight on the PC, Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 5, what do these 3 games have in common? They are all recent examples of games that released full of bugs and glitches to the point of being almost unplayable in some cases. Years ago the only thing this meant was buy at your own risk. Nowadays however things are a bit more complicated. With the advent of online systems for home consoles (something the pc has had for well over a decade) developers can now send patches and updates to games. Meaning a game that is broken on launch may not stay that way forever. Now this creates a very difficult situation for almost everyone involved. Let’s start with the reviewers.
The primary job of someone reviewing a game professionally is to provide potential buyers with a snapshot of the experience so they can make an educated purchase. The secondary job is to provide their opinion on that experience. This is an issue when that experience and thus the opinion on the experience can change over time if a game is fixed post-release. A game that a reviewer finds unplayable due to bugs can be an entirely different experience after a patch. It brings into question should reviewers go back and do the review over after a patch? Most publications that review games have a policy NOT to go back and redo the review. However a consumer that goes to buy the game 3 months after launch may be wrongly put off from buying based on reviews of the game at launch. This is neither fair to the consumer nor fair to the developer. Which brings me to the next entity, the developers.
So why does it seem more and more games are being released in a broken or unfinished state? It’s really because of an entire broken system, but the most responsible party would be the publisher. Publishers are pushing for developers to make so-called triple A games at a breakneck pace with fewer resources than necessary. You can do a quick google search for horror stories from developers who rarely saw their families and were driven near mad to complete a game in the timeframe given. The biggest issue arises when a game that is released in a poor state due to the circumstances created by the publisher, reviews poorly, thus sells poorly and the developers who worked out it are shorted money and bonuses. Meaning all the hard work they put in just results in disappointment. Even if their game is fixed in a week or a month, that initial review is what stands. Meta-Critic scores are held as the law. Since reviewers don’t go back and redo the reviews the meta-critic score does not change. Potential buyers looking 6 months down the road will be looking at the same score as buyers who looked at launch even if it’s an entirely different experience.
Probably the most affected by the current review system is the consumer. Buying a game means not only an investment of $60 but also of time and effort. No one wants to waste money on a game that is frustrating to play due to technical glitches. It also affects someone down the road when the game is actually patched and fixed, who may have been willing to buy the game until seeing review scores. It puts them in a difficult position of buying the game and hoping they don’t encounter the bugs or avoiding altogether. It’s especially difficult for someone highly anticipating a game.
So what’s the best course of action? Reviewers certainly can’t wait for patches to release the review, they can take months before a game is fixed. It’s unfortunate but publishers aren’t going to give developers more time or resources to work out the bugs before release. Consumers with more and more access to information are not going to simply buy the game and hope for the best. So what can be done. The best course of action is for publications to revisit a game. To actually change the review score when and if issues are resolved. Games are not like music they are not set in stone. An album once released does not change over time, it’s understandable for a reviewer not to go back and revisit an album. While I do revisit albums a year later, it’s only to see if my feelings on the album have changed not if the album itself has and I wouldn’t expect other reviewers to do the same. Games on the other hand can change over time. Any responsible, professional, reviewer, who takes themselves seriously, should be taking another look at a game once it’s fixed or patched and possibly rescoring.
Now this may sound like the potential for a slippery slope, where does the revisiting end? Should a reviewer be expected to look at a multiplayer game 3 years down the line and talk about how the community is dead? This applies only to games with technical issues not inherent gameplay issues. A bad game is a bad game glitches or not. However looking at two of the games I mentioned Batman Arkham Knight for the PC and Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 5, if you read the reviews there’s at least a decent game hiding underneath the technical issues. Meaning the experience as a whole would change once those issues are resolved. A game like Painkiller: Resurrection or The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct are not going to be any better even if the technical issues are resolved. So there’s easily a clear line when a redo is necessary and when it’s a waste of time.
As of now the entire system is broken. There isn’t simply one cause for the alarming number of big games being released in a poor state, and there isn’t simply one party that is affected by it. The entire industry needs to adjust to the modern age.
Thank you all for listening, subscribe below if you like what you heard and let me know what you think in the comments below. Should game reviewers go back and rescore games that are patched after launch?
Hideo Kojima once again proves to be a singular creative force in the video game industry, crafting a sequel in Death Stranding 2: On the Beach that is not just essential for fans of the first game, but an essential experience for all gamers.
The Meta Quest 3S Xbox Edition has arrived for $399.99, but we wonder if it was really needed or just a simple cash-in.
We're talking about a limited edition item here, and by definition, those aren’t exactly 'needed'. But when you look at what’s included, the controller, the strap, and a few months of Game Pass, it actually turns out to be a surprisingly good deal.
What’s weird is that this is a VR headset branded with Xbox, a platform that doesn’t even support VR. And Xbox is part of Microsoft, a company that more or less walked away from all of its VR efforts. Yet somehow, this ends up being the best value available for a VR headset. If you're looking to get into VR, unless you're buying used, it’s hard to find anything that offers more for the price.
Here's more information about the fan favorite Dynasty Mode for EA SPORTS College Football 26 and that time is now here!
You're talking about changing the basic mentality of the whole system. From publishers exploiting devs and manipulating reviewers, to reviewers needing to get reviews out ASAP, to the general consumer market taking first reviews at face value only to balk when they find a game is a lemon.
No, they shouldn't be re-scored. If a product is broken on release, it's a broken product. Games are not guaranteed to be fixed with patches. So a reviewer should tell the consumer that a title is broken or not. Maybe an addendum to inform the customer that the title is fixed, but that is not deserving of a score adjustment. The developer/publisher made the conscious decision to put out a broken product, they reap the repercussions.
No, get it right the first time or suffer the consequences.
I would to read reviews that would skew their reviews because they know a patch is coming or not review a game until well after the release and when all the patches are implemented. That is not fair to the consumer who is dropping hard earned cash on a game that may be broken at launch.
*re-scored
If a game is seriously updated and fixes all the issues mentioned in a review then the review should be updated because the content of the review is no longer true.