Should Bugs/Glitches count towards a game's score/assessment?

Should it?

I ask because quite a few people on the fourms/critics in general, hit hard or not hard enough on games and the glitches/bugs in them. However, should they really? Should a game's score/assessment be affected by the glitches/bugs that the personexperienced in the game as glitches and bugs can vary greatly from playthrough to playthrough?

For me, I don't think the score of a game should really be affected by the glitches/bugs in that game; glitches and bugs are just to random and vary to much from one playthrough to another. For instances: Glitches and bugs are practically a staple of Bethesda games; there's an immediate correlation between Bethesda games and bugs/glitches. Truth be told, I don't get it. I've played four hundreds of hours in both Morrowind and Oblivion and saw about three or four game glitches and none of which were at all detrimental to the game in anyway shape or form except for just being very silly and cosmetic. I have, however,experienced several weird saved game problems in Morrowind but I think that's just due to the overabundance of saves I have in that game. Otherwise, these games have really just been glitch free for me; I've seen the glitches online but never experienced them for myself.

Even if these glitches do exist for others it doesn't seem right for me to take down points or my overall enjoyment of these games simply because others have been having issues. That's like saying I order pizza and when I get it my next door neighbor also gets pizza but he haspepperonis on his pizza and I hatepepperonis so I instantly hate my pizza...except it doesn't have pepperonis; his does! Even in the overall assessment of the game I don't think it should really affect one's outlook on a game, sure a game may have been coated top to bottom in bugs and glitches but if you still had fun who gives a $#!+? The gameplay was great and whatnot along with everything else so who cares if the game bugged frequently? Also, don't limit this to just Bethesda's games; New Vegas was crap on consoles but people still put the game higher than Fallout 3 even though the glitches from what I heard were worse than that of say Skyrim (Xbox and PC not PS3, PS3 was a little bit...buggier).

So what do you think? For critics and gamers alike, should bugs and glitches count towards a game's score/assessment or should they not?

If the bugs and glitches affect your enjoyment of the game the game assesement should be harsher.

Yes.

Absolutely.

Yes. Some of the glitches in Skyrim are the equivelent of the director of a movie stumbling on set before apologizing and carrying on filming.

Yes, when they are obvious or game breaking.

Yes, and that is why Dead Island should have been severly duct points for their game breaking bug that corrupted a great deal of people save data..ArisShadows

They usually do get knocked for it unless Bethesda developed the game.

Fallout 3 (Bethesda) , buggy as hell, gets a 9.0 on GS

Fallout: New Vegas (Obsidian), buggy as hell, but also better than Fallout 3 in nearly every regard, gets a 7.5 (on consolols at least)

[QUOTE="ArisShadows"]Yes, and that is why Dead Island should have been severly duct points for their game breaking bug that corrupted a great deal of people save data..mems_1224

it really does depend on the Bugs and Glitches.

If it breaks the game where it's unplayable and not fun, it should be docked down for the game.

If it's actually a pretty funny and awesome exploitable glitch or bug, then it's not a bug it's a feature and should be honored as part of the game.

The answer seems obvious. Yes, glitches matters. If a game is full of bugs, it's score should be docked. If a game is clean and nearly bug free, it should be praised. Whether the game sucks or not matters as well, naturally, and an amazing or horrible base experience can allow bugs to be overlooked.

The only thing that shouldn't hurt a games score imo is not having online multiplayer. If a dev team decides not to have online play. Reviews shouldn't take away score points. Because devs end up adding online play to there game which then turns out terrible and gets a bad score anyway.

If a game wants to be SP you shouldn't dock points for not having online.

Yes.

If the game is a "broken mess" in it's current state, it should be clearly stated so in the review and impact the score as well.

yes and for this reason almost all bethesda games should have much lower scores and their GOTY titles stripped from them.

Just as everyone is saying, if they affect the gameplay, the bugs and glitches should definately negatively impact a review score.

Skyrim for example should never have scored a 9 on PS3 but it probably (arguably) deserved it on PC, where the bugs didn't really affect the game. The only two major bugs I encountered was the uncoloured dragons, which only made them easier to see and dead things getting sent into orbit with the death blow, which was sometimes quite entertaining.

Should they count? Yes. Do they count? No. How else would Skyrim have won GOTY? If they counted, then Skyrim wouldn't have won, but it did, so clearly they don't count.AmazonTreeBoa

If the bugs and glitches affect your enjoyment of the game the game assesement should be harsher.

super600

[QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"]Should they count? Yes. Do they count? No. How else would Skyrim have won GOTY? If they counted, then Skyrim wouldn't have won, but it did, so clearly they don't count.mems_1224

[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"]Should they count? Yes. Do they count? No. How else would Skyrim have won GOTY? If they counted, then Skyrim wouldn't have won, but it did, so clearly they don't count.AmazonTreeBoa

Depends on whether it's the sort of game that will be receiving continual patches and updates, or whether it's meant to be a complete product.Tylendal

Speaking of which, hahaha!

Skyrim had game breaking bugs on PS3..mems_1224

Which version(s) the person has actually played should be clarified in the review. If you've only played one version it stands to reason that you shouldn't be handing out scores to other versions. Assuming they're all more or less the same does a disservice to your readers when they're not.

Part of playing the game is to actually play the games instead of running into technical issues.dramaybaz

What does this mean?

[QUOTE="mems_1224"]Skyrim had game breaking bugs on PS3..McStrongfast

Which version(s) the person has actually played should be clarified in the review. If you've only played one version it stands to reason that you shouldn't be handing out scores to other versions. Assuming they're all more or less the same does a disservice to your readers when they're not.

Part of playing the game is to actually play the games instead of running into technical issues.dramaybaz

What does this mean?

I used to think no, based on it being the bottom rung of nitpicking... No game is perfect and no game should be judged based on silly and arbitrary glitches and bugs... Then I played Fallout New Vegas, which at launch was so badly executed, it destroyed the immersion and enjoyment of the game. To that, I have an issue and feel like it should be accounted for in a game review... Remember that a review is designed to inform a gamer of ALL aspects of a games quality and while I feel that many games have been way to harshley criticized for bugs that didnt detract from a games overall experience, I am glad that they are pointed out to warn us of those that do.

definetely, and for the next elder scrolls they review they should reflect that.

Of course. The big reason I got rid of Conduit 2 was because of all the damn glitches. Such an unfinished game.

Absolutely.

Skyrim should have been given a 5 until it was fixed.

Ps3 version is still a 5.

[QUOTE="McStrongfast"]

[QUOTE="mems_1224"]Skyrim had game breaking bugs on PS3..mems_1224

Which version(s) the person has actually played should be clarified in the review. If you've only played one version it stands to reason that you shouldn't be handing out scores to other versions. Assuming they're all more or less the same does a disservice to your readers when they're not.

The PS3 version is widely considered to be tangibly worse than the others, reviews and scores don't reflect this. This is critics failing. If you haven't put the time in then don't put a score on it, don't review it. You may get away with it 99% of the time, but every 100th review you'll look like a right ass.

Yes. If a game has issues or is broken etc....then the reviews should relfect them in the score and warn consumers not to buy it until it get's fixed.

[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="McStrongfast"] And those shouldn't count because why? There's no defense for glossing over that. beyond perhaps if critics managed to not get exposed to whatever bugs it was that version had that made it become this prolific example.

Which version(s) the person has actually played should be clarified in the review. If you've only played one version it stands to reason that you shouldn't be handing out scores to other versions. Assuming they're all more or less the same does a disservice to your readers when they're not.

McStrongfast

The PS3 version is widely considered to be tangibly worse than the others, reviews and scores don't reflect this. This is critics failing. If you haven't put the time in then don't put a score on it, don't review it. You may get away with it 99% of the time, but every 100th review you'll look like a right ass.

Yes because a buggy piece of crap should not be tolerated for a game I'm paying premium for and I shouldn't have to friggin patch this piece of garbage every month to get it to work properly.

[QUOTE="McStrongfast"]

[QUOTE="mems_1224"] They can only do so much. Clearly they were limited in what they could do because of the hardware. Bethesda should have just not released it on PS3 at all. Most reviewers say what version they played and most review copies that websites get are going to be on 360 or PC. Seeing as how the PS3 problems showed up after dozens of hours playing you can't expect reviewers to put 100 hours into each platform.mems_1224

The PS3 version is widely considered to be tangibly worse than the others, reviews and scores don't reflect this. This is critics failing. If you haven't put the time in then don't put a score on it, don't review it. You may get away with it 99% of the time, but every 100th review you'll look like a right ass.

If the bugs and glitches affect your enjoyment of the game the game assesement should be harsher.

super600