Is "minor bugs and glitches" really a flaw?

Many Gamespot reviews score a game 8/10 and 9/10 and the only flaws they tend to list are "minor bugs and glitches" and "some minor framerate issues". Next-Gen GTA V review, case in point.

There's no problem with mentioning it in the review, but to put it as a con in the pros and cons column, really?

Are these factors really something that will dissuade someone from buying a game. From a consumer advocate standpoint, which is what reviews are for, is this really going to help consumers pick the right product?

It really seems like a relic from the era where game reviews were purely a sum of the game's graphics, sound, controls and little else. I'm looking for other points of view though, so correct me if I'm wrong.

@drekula2: But IGN has some of the funniest cons like,

"Unpredictable AI" or "Too much water" lol

Even if the game gets high praise I still think it's worth pointing out that there bugs and glitches present. It's good to have that information out there instead of pretending like the game is perfect. I'm sure there are people who will hold off on buying GTA V on PS4/XB1 because reviewers are mentioning there are significant framerate dips, even if they may be in the minority.

But at least they're funny. I'm not going to delve into IGN because we can both agree how silly they can be.

But really Gamespot? This is not 1997.

I like my reviews old skool. I don't need them to be some neo-polictial soapbox.

I feel minor bugs and glitches would mean that they are more prevalent than a well polished game like Uncharted 2 (which has very few minor bugs and glitches) but not quite on the same level as something like a Bethesda game. Therefore I think it's worth mentioning, but it should also be noted that they aren't game breaking or severely hinder progress.

Ummm... yes...

Not seeing the problem.

Yeah.

Yes

WTF,

NOT mentioning bugs and glitches is one of the things that pisses me off the most when I go buy a game that reviewers give 9.0+. That is like false advertising IMO. A game should be pretty much flawless in execution, performance and gameplay before even being considered for a AAA score.

Actually, bugs and glitches should be the FIRST thing that reviewers note and knock when combing over a game. It's things like that which should absolutely prevent a game from ever receiving a AAA score.

It's not fair to all the flawless performing games that get knocked just because a reviewer didn't like something about a game on a personal level to rate another game higher even tho it has technical flaws that other games didn't (skyrim ect).

I know you and I don't normally see eye to eye but I agree with you on this. Why did Skyrim and the other Bethseda titles get praised for massive scores yet they are (on consoles anyway) some of the buggy games known to man?

If you don't think reviewers should mention bugs and glitches in the pros and cons section of reviews then why the hell would we even need reviewers for?

Technical proficiently is a basic and fundamental part of achieving immersion in video games. If a game is glitchy or broken it completely takes you out of the game; that is a HUGE flaw IMO.

simple answer, Yes :p

It depends how minor. If they're seriously worth noting, then that's fine. If it's more like you're pointing out the most obscure bug, where you have to be in one place at one time to see the results, then nah.

Oh please...there are people in this forum who would positively relish minor bugs and glitches provided of course the title was on their console of choice.

Yeah, but if it's just some minor frame-rate dips, or occassional pop-up, that's not going to stop anybody from buying or loving a game.

minor isolated bugs are expected, but numerous ones can be pretty distracting. Don't forget that reviewers typically don't start at then then deduct. It's actually the other way around, they add as they go.

Depends how frequently they show up. Minor bugs and glitches in Skyrim are omnipresent.

Yes. It's like that prof you have once in your college that deducts your mark for making a small grammatical mistake. But in the end, it is a mistake.

Minor glitches and bugs don't break the game, but they sure as hell don't make the game more playable.

If you are talking about Pokemon ORAS, I think too much water is indeed a valid criticism. It's like saying "Dat fucking Water Temple" in OoT. In fact, I want to praise IGN writer's restraint when he could've (and should've) said "too much fucking water," because there is too much fucking water in that game.

10 has been defined by Gamespot, generally, over the years as "as close to perfect as humanly possible, with little to no flaws and the best representation of the genre at the time".

If the bugs/glitches impede the experience in any way (and aren't like those in Super Metroid or Symphony of the Night where they are merely exploitable by speed runners) then how can the game be near perfect?

a game should have minor bugs and flaws noted yes, it is very much one of the more important points of a review, certainly not scores or padding fanboys on the backs.

it does not matter if it is a funny flaw either, if there are flaws or bugs, they are or have the potentail to hurt the overall experience.

In general I prefer a review to be based as much on how the game is built objectively, and then added the subjective feelings on the reviewer, so the technical stuff is more important to me, then personal preferences of a genre or the like. Ofcourse that also accounts for how the game is structured.

Don't overthink it. The Cons section lists problems which seem to be the most dominant. For instance, if a game is boring and poorly designed, then this will be listed as a con, and other cons like 'minor bugs and glitches' won't be listed. If something as trivial as 'minor bugs and glitches' is listed, it means the game generally doesn't have anything that bad about it, so this will be the next most disturbing thing.

It follows the concept of option elimination. And one of the reasons why people take issue with relatively trivial things in The Last of Us is because the game is overall very good, so minor things stand out compared to other games. Same principle

Depends... A minor bug is a serious con in a game with emphasis on challenge... For reference please play the Souls Games. Those games will truly test how forgiving you are.

Yeah. Back in the good old days when the reviewer can just talk about the graphics and sound and controls. Does it even matter that all 21st century gamers know how the controls work in most established genres and that we can just assess the graphics and sound off of youtube.

Subjective (note: not partial) reviews are good. I know what the graphics, sound and controls are like. But I want to know how the game affected the reviewer, and overall, whether it was a game that took a piece of their soul or just a game they're gonna put down when they're done.

A critic should criticize things, so yeah.

Games cost a lot of money to buy now, given the current industry practices I want to be dam sure said game is worth my time and money. Bugs and glitchs no matter how minor will instantly render a game unplayable for me.

the fact that so many games that have been torn to shreds by their fanbase with so many flaws, and all GS has to say about them is "minor bugs and glitches" suggests that they aren't really criticizing it.

surely in the review score bugs and glitches should effect the score??? I mean it been like this for years now, get over it, 6,7,8 are all above average scores, honestly don't understand all these high scores, why not use the full spectrum we may aswel only have bad, fair, good, amazing and be done with it with all these high scores.

this gen should of got rid of most of the glitches and bugs from last gen, it should always come into effect of the score, thats why no one really bothers anymore with scores because the review explains there views. don't take the scores so seriously take the actual review. it doesn't matter.

Then the real drawback here is that game critics suck, and less listing minor bugs and glitches as a con is wrong or something. Bugs and glitches are a negative, it's not like people are going to be cool with performance glitches or jarring shit. Especially in games meant to be immerse you in the experience. But, sure half the time with the positive reviews it's like they didn't even try to find a criticism.