This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by HarlockJC (25546 posts) -

I know the policy is that all reviews are based on the day the game hits the shelves and not after game updates to the games are done. I never really cared about this rule until it effected me. I was looking at getting Sonic Racing for the Wii-U, then I saw the game scored a 6.0. So this had bummed me out until I found out from someone else that the game had an update that fixed the issues that was expected in your review of the game. I understand you may not change your review scores or notes. This would take alot of time, don't forget many people base what games they are going to buy on reviews. It would be nice if it was noted somewhere when looking up a review that there been an update to the game.

I also wonder if this practice is now becomes dated. Many games such as NSMB Wii U and MGS4 require an update before you start playing them. If these games reviews are being based after an update should it be noted that an update was done to a game.

Thank You

#2 Posted by The_Last_Ride (70678 posts) -
i have to agree, at least change the score if there is an update
#3 Posted by Bigboi500 (29347 posts) -

I agree, they need to be adjusted after updates. It kind of defeats the whole purpose of reviews when they end up inaccurate and misleading to the public, like the Sonic Racing review does.

#4 Posted by dab198 (3893 posts) -

It would be nice if it was noted somewhere when looking up a review that there been an update to the game.

HarlockJC

That's exactly what the 'After the Fact' entries are for. Review scores have historically never been adjusted though.

#5 Posted by Zen_Light (1231 posts) -

[QUOTE="HarlockJC"]

It would be nice if it was noted somewhere when looking up a review that there been an update to the game.

dab198

That's exactly what the 'After the Fact' entries are for. Review scores have historically never been adjusted though.

New gerenation, new ways of thinking to keep up with the times is called for.

#6 Posted by michaelP4 (16680 posts) -
While it sounds like a good idea at first glance, and I would actually be in support of perhaps even a note or a Score Before and Score After system if it can be done for certain games, wouldn't this defeat the purpose of developers getting it right the first time - which is what should be the case? If a game is glitchy, then it deserves a lower score than what it would have got if it wasn't glitchy. It sends out the message to make sure your games work before they're put out on the market. Plus as you said, this is probably quite unlikely to happen as the administration of it would be hard to justify.
#7 Posted by Bigboi500 (29347 posts) -

While it sounds like a good idea at first glance, and I would actually be in support of perhaps even a note or a Score Before and Score After system if it can be done for certain games, wouldn't this defeat the purpose of developers getting it right the first time - which is what should be the case? If a game is glitchy, then it deserves a lower score than what it would have got if it wasn't glitchy. It sends out the message to make sure your games work before they're put out on the market. Plus as you said, this is probably quite unlikely to happen as the administration of it would be hard to justify.michaelP4
In this day of game development it's getting harder and harder for games to be perfect from the start with the size of games now and so much pressure to meet deadlines. I agree with the other poster who said a new generation deserves higher standards for reviews.

If the goal and main purpose of reviews is to best inform the consumer and be accurate enough to do so, they should either wait a month or so before reviewing the game, or revise reviews for accuracy down the road.

#8 Posted by HarlockJC (25546 posts) -

[QUOTE="HarlockJC"]

It would be nice if it was noted somewhere when looking up a review that there been an update to the game.

dab198

That's exactly what the 'After the Fact' entries are for. Review scores have historically never been adjusted though.

I know of the after the fact, it had never bothered me in the past and it's something you don't think about until it effects you. I have bought games based on the reviews listed on Gamespot. I am not asking for them to change the score. But someway there should be an easy was to let users know there been an update to the game. I am sure many of these companies would be more than happy to let Gamespot know there has been a change in the game or an issue fixed. Allowing people to go based on incorrect information is not a very good idea for the site in my opinion.

#9 Posted by michaelP4 (16680 posts) -
If the goal and main purpose of reviews is to best inform the consumer and be accurate enough to do so, they should either wait a month or so before reviewing the game, or revise reviews for accuracy down the road.Bigboi500
Definitely not feasible to wait a month for a review for a game - GS would be out of business if it did that and the other option again would be very hard to administer. It all comes down to money at the end of the day - if gamers want something like this to be done, which it'd be nice to see as I agree with it in principle, you'd need to somehow find a cheap and easy way of doing it, while also maintaining the meticulous quality that GS invests in their reviews. It's quite hard to put that into practice. All I could think of is that users themselves do it through their own reviews or voluntarily help out GS in doing it, which you'd need to make sure the right people are doing it for the latter.