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

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Goyoshi12
#1 Posted by Goyoshi12 (9687 posts) -

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?

Avatar image for super600
#2 Posted by super600 (32423 posts) -

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

Avatar image for Cheleman
#3 Posted by Cheleman (8197 posts) -

Yes.

Avatar image for ChubbyGuy40
#4 Posted by ChubbyGuy40 (26442 posts) -

Absolutely.

Avatar image for freedomfreak
#5 Posted by freedomfreak (50191 posts) -
If they get in the way of gameplay, sure.
Avatar image for ArisShadows
#6 Posted by ArisShadows (22784 posts) -
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..
Avatar image for nutcrackr
#7 Posted by nutcrackr (13029 posts) -
For sure, and that's one reason why reviews can be different. If people have a buggy experience then they need to say so. So readers get an overall view of how buggy the game is. Some people are more tolerant of bugs so it's probably best to give examples. Still it's important to mention if there are noticeable problems.
Avatar image for Peredith
#8 Posted by Peredith (2289 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for PsychoLemons
#9 Posted by PsychoLemons (3178 posts) -

Yes, when they are obvious or game breaking.

Avatar image for mems_1224
#10 Posted by mems_1224 (56917 posts) -
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
Yea but a reviewer can't hold something against a game that they haven't experienced.
Avatar image for BPoole96
#11 Posted by BPoole96 (22817 posts) -

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)

Avatar image for Tylendal
#12 Posted by Tylendal (14681 posts) -
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.
Avatar image for CwlHeddwyn
#13 Posted by CwlHeddwyn (5314 posts) -
[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
Yea but a reviewer can't hold something against a game that they haven't experienced.

True, but how many a reviewer has turned a blind eye to a major glitch on the basis that not everyone will experience it?
Avatar image for LegatoSkyheart
#14 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (29702 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for Vaasman
#15 Posted by Vaasman (12980 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for lowe0
#16 Posted by lowe0 (13692 posts) -
Oh hell yes. If I write buggy code and don't fix it before it goes to production, it's coming up in my annual review. Why should it be any different for them?
Avatar image for PCgameruk
#17 Posted by PCgameruk (1995 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for nameless12345
#18 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for Jonwh18
#19 Posted by Jonwh18 (9350 posts) -

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

Avatar image for Heil68
#20 Posted by Heil68 (57942 posts) -
Yes. They effect the game and the enjoyment.
Avatar image for sora16perfect
#21 Posted by sora16perfect (729 posts) -
They already do, you know, unless its a Bethesda game.
Avatar image for GarGx1
#22 Posted by GarGx1 (9684 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for McStrongfast
#23 Posted by McStrongfast (4701 posts) -
Depends on severity, frequency and other circumstances, but in general, yes. They're judging the games based on their actual experience, not some theoretical playthrough that best exemplifies the average.
Avatar image for AmazonTreeBoa
#24 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -
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.
Avatar image for mems_1224
#25 Posted by mems_1224 (56917 posts) -
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
Because Skyrim is so good that even all the little bugs don't take away from the amazing experience. Skyrim didn't have any game breaking bugs unless you got it on PS3 which no one should ever do anyways. All the little bugs and glitches it had are to be expected in an open world game, especially one with so many things going on like in Skyrim.
Avatar image for jg4xchamp
#26 Posted by jg4xchamp (61470 posts) -

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

super600

Avatar image for AmazonTreeBoa
#27 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -
[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
Because Skyrim is so good that even all the little bugs don't take away from the amazing experience. Skyrim didn't have any game breaking bugs unless you got it on PS3 which no one should ever do anyways. All the little bugs and glitches it had are to be expected in an open world game, especially one with so many things going on like in Skyrim.

Surprise suprise. Somebody in SW trying to make excuses. :roll: Nothing new here.
Avatar image for mems_1224
#28 Posted by mems_1224 (56917 posts) -
[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
Because Skyrim is so good that even all the little bugs don't take away from the amazing experience. Skyrim didn't have any game breaking bugs unless you got it on PS3 which no one should ever do anyways. All the little bugs and glitches it had are to be expected in an open world game, especially one with so many things going on like in Skyrim.

Surprise suprise. Somebody in SW trying to make excuses. :roll: Nothing new here.

No game is bug free, especially open world games.
Avatar image for McStrongfast
#29 Posted by McStrongfast (4701 posts) -

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
Reviewers should review the builds companies deem complete enough to put out on the market and/or send reviewers to review, based on the quality of said build. Not gloss over flaws based on the vague premise that some day they might potentially get addressed. That's real poor practice.

Speaking of which, hahaha!

Avatar image for dramaybaz
#30 Posted by dramaybaz (6020 posts) -
Part of playing the game is to actually play the games instead of running into technical issues.
Avatar image for McStrongfast
#31 Posted by McStrongfast (4701 posts) -

Skyrim had game breaking bugs on PS3..mems_1224
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.

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

What does this mean?

Avatar image for mems_1224
#32 Posted by mems_1224 (56917 posts) -

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

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

What does this mean?

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.
Avatar image for TheEroica
#33 Posted by TheEroica (17416 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
#34 Posted by nintendoboy16 (34363 posts) -
If it hinders your experience, hell yeah. That being said, there are several glitches that don't.
Avatar image for ReadingRainbow4
#35 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (18733 posts) -

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

Avatar image for Michael0134567
#36 Posted by Michael0134567 (28651 posts) -

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

Avatar image for ristactionjakso
#37 Posted by ristactionjakso (6118 posts) -

Absolutely.

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

Ps3 version is still a 5.

Avatar image for McStrongfast
#38 Posted by McStrongfast (4701 posts) -

[QUOTE="McStrongfast"]

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

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.

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.

Why a game turned out buggy doesn't really matter.

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.

Avatar image for ShadowMoses900
#39 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for mems_1224
#41 Posted by mems_1224 (56917 posts) -

[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

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.

Why a game turned out buggy doesn't really matter.

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.

Like I said, you can't expect reviewers to put 100s of hours into 3 different versions of the same game.
Avatar image for ActicEdge
#42 Posted by ActicEdge (24492 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for McStrongfast
#43 Posted by McStrongfast (4701 posts) -

[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

Why a game turned out buggy doesn't really matter.

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.

Like I said, you can't expect reviewers to put 100s of hours into 3 different versions of the same game.

I'm not.

Avatar image for senses_fail_06
#44 Posted by senses_fail_06 (7098 posts) -
Yes, and they should be sure they aren't reviewing the game under day one patches. What you ship on the disc is what should be reviewed.
Avatar image for BrunoBRS
#45 Posted by BrunoBRS (74156 posts) -

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

super600
that's it, pretty much. if they're so often, and so harmful, that they get in the way of fun, then they, well, get in the way of fun, duh. and if they get in the way of fun, then it's a negative.