Poll: Should Games Be Re-Reviewed?

[GeorgW]

Yet another reason why assigning a number to a game to represent how good it is DOESN'T WORK.

I agree, a number is difficult to represent, people often skip the reviews and just read the number, it's pretty insulting to the game as a whole. Still, numerical reviews are here to stay, like it or not.

At the very least the overall number should be removed, and each part of the game should get a separate score (sound/music, gameplay, length/replayability, graphics etc.)

Yes! That idea is perfect and I agree that it needs to be removed as an "overall" score, and needs to be reviewed the way IGN does, minus overall. Sound, graphics, replayability, quality and all.

Yes, they definitely should. DLC is sometimes reviewed, but MMOs for example could definitely benefit from extra reviews. But when would they be made? How would you keep them apart? It could get rather confusing.

Number the review. For example: "Initial World of Warcraft Review", then perhaps "World of Warcraft Patch 2.00 Review", so on and so on.

That could still be confusing. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I love it, it'd just be really hard to implement. Patches are constantly released, how do you decide which one to review?

Also, a lot of sites rate different aspects separately and not just overall, and I love that, but you still need the overall for metacritic and comparisons. If you want to know more, you'll check out the individual components, but it'd be easier to decide which games to check out more closely with an overall number. I think we need to increase the number of separate categories to rate, the more the merrier.

 

[Salem_Wolf]

They should "review" the DLC based on the DLC's own merit.

But I'm also talking about patches, like Burnout Paradise which added bikes and day/night without purchasing DLC. It was an automatic install and unlike DLC was not gotten from the Xbox or PS3 store. Plus it's hard to judge a patch on its own merit without the backbone of the original game behind it.

It's hard to say about patches, but with DLC... I could give a good opinion on the merits of, say, Mothership Zeta for Fallout 3 and how it uses the game engine.

Right. Some patches are more improving and adding than DLC are sometimes, it's rare but like in Burnout Paradise's case, you had more improvement with the patches than most of the DLC.

It is interesting to see a game being rereviewed with the standards of that time to see if the game holds up and remains good. Like the Metal Gear Solid games for instance. Back then they were solid gold but now ...

Well, I meant games that are improved with patches/DLC, but that would be interesting to look back on some games.

 

[Grey_Focks]

Hmm...hard to say. I can see points for both sides of the argument. What if someone doesn't have their console hooked up to the internet? Patches affect them fuck all. Then again, almost everyone DOES have their consoles hooked up to the internet...THEN AGAIN, should the companies who make buggy/poorly made/shitty games really be give that chance, if they're pretty much saying "Hey, you just paid full price for a beta! Don't worry, you'll get a working product...eventually. Assuming the game actually sells well enough to warrant our continued attention, that is."

I'd say, no, as a doing an additional review every time a patch comes out is just beyond impractical (You'd need to hire a whole team just for TF2 reviews!), not to mention I doubt most people would really keep following it after the initial review. What I propose? If a patch comes out that meaningfully affects the game, they could just update the review with a note on the end. That way people without internet connections still know that the game they're buying will be buggy as hell, but if they get their console hooked up, it may eventually be less buggy!

Or, you know, developers could make less buggy games.

 

[emeraldrafael]

So, are you talking games like they were on the N64 reviewed, or just patches?

Cuase I dont htink I game should be reviewed if its obvious a patch will be needed for it. I also dont think it would be wise to review old games because nostalgia and gprahics limitations, biasedness towards them by people who are being raised on Halo 3 and holding that to the new standard would get in the way.

So I guess no both ways really.

 

[Kaloc]

Id have to say no to reviewing every patch that would come out to a game but Id still have to say that we should give games a second chance and maybe give the a re-review but maybe only do reviews on major patches not on every single patch that would come out on one game you would be reviewing all day.

 

[Hairetos]

No. Games companies that insist on releasing poorly optimised, buggy, unfinished games then say they'll fix them 3 months later deserve all the bad reviews they get and more.

Reviews aren't meant to be some sort of justice system for game developers. They exist to persuade or dissuade people from buying games. If a game has dramatically changed for the better and people still wonder about buying it (after being put-off by bad reviews), then absolutely they should be re-reviewed.

So yes, yes they should.

 

[Arkley]

Provided they've been changed/improved substantially, yes. It's fair enough to say that you want to play a game as soon as you've bought it, and not wait several months 'till it's playable. It's certainly annoying that developers occasionally release games in unfinished conditions. But if initial reports of bugs and freezes put you off immediately buying a game you would otherwise enjoy, wouldn't you like to know how the game has improved when those problems are fixed?

You could simply not buy it immediately and then, upon reading a re-review that states the game has substantially improved since a major patch, buy it later. Chances are you'd get it much cheaper, too.

Let's not forget that the entire purpose of a review is to guide purchases. To warn us away from terrible games by explaining how and why they're terrible, and to encourage us to buy games that are great by explaining what's great about them. They can also let us know that a game is great, but flawed. Why not let them tell us when a flawed game has improved, too?

 

[Istanbul]

I think that re-reviewing older games can conceivably be a good thing, but it's important to keep in mind that there are two big factors that need to be considered when you're going back and touching on older titles.

1) Nostalgia. Remember that the games you're talking about are probably fond memories to a lot of people out there, and you're likely to get backlash from folks who view these games through rose-colored glasses.

2) Chronology. These are often going to be games from days gone past, from a time when graphics, music, design sensibilities, and other considerations were on an entirely different level. If you're going to review an old NES game, review its graphics and music as compared to other NES games, not as compared to what we have now.

If you can keep these in mind when you're writing your reviews, then you're probably okay reviewing legacy games. But if you can't step outside yourself and look at it objectively, probably better to leave them alone.

 

[Jelly ^.^]

I believe that everyone has and is entitled to an opinion on everything, and they may choose to express it if they wish, and people may read these opinions if they wish. Reviewing things retrospectively can help an audience notice particularly good things they may have missed, and presents a place to satiate their curiosities about what it may have been like, and whether it is at all viable to find out.


[shamelessplug] I am currently in the process of reviewing several old DOS games in the Community Reviews section of the forum- if EGA spectres still haunt your dreams with visions from your childhood, or if you're curious about what the last generation has to offer, check out DOS Gems![/shamelessplug]

 

[Numachuka]

I honestly never read reviews anyway, as they are just the opinions of other people. The only time I take notice is if they have got good reviews everywhere.Then I usually try and get a demo, or play it at a friends before buying a game.

 

[Sixcess]

Reviews aren't meant to be some sort of justice system for game developers. They exist to persuade or dissuade people from buying games. If a game has dramatically changed for the better and people still wonder about buying it (after being put-off by bad reviews), then absolutely they should be re-reviewed.

So yes, yes they should.

Gamers may or may not care about the review scores, but games companies do. I'm not talking about indie titles here, but major releases with budgets running into millions of dollars. I see no reason why review sites should give them a free damage control exercise 6 months later. If a bad initial review hurts their rep, or their sales, then maybe they'll try harder the next time.

If companies expect people to pay full price for a new release on day one I see no reason why gamers shouldn't expect them to produce games that work properly on day one.

 

[Rednog]

I really don't think there is a point to re-review a game later on. By the time a lot of patches or fixes roll around most of the gaming population has moved on and no longer cares. In terms of cost/benefit the review will probably matter to very few people so it won't be worth the cost of the reviewer to re-review the game.

 

[Kaloc]

Reviews aren't meant to be some sort of justice system for game developers. They exist to persuade or dissuade people from buying games. If a game has dramatically changed for the better and people still wonder about buying it (after being put-off by bad reviews), then absolutely they should be re-reviewed.

So yes, yes they should.

Gamers may or may not care about the review scores, but games companies do. I'm not talking about indie titles here, but major releases with budgets running into millions of dollars. I see no reason why review sites should give them a free damage control exercise 6 months later. If a bad initial review hurts their rep, or their sales, then maybe they'll try harder the next time.

If companies expect people to pay full price for a new release on day one I see no reason why gamers shouldn't expect them to sell games that work properly on day one.

Then shouldn't gamers be ready for mistakes and just get past them just from numbers of bad game experiences. Plus as I stated before when People hate a game some people love the same game its just a matter of opinion.

 

[Veylon]

Yes. But only if either the game gets an expansion pack, or a sequel (for comparison purposes), or if it's been out long enough for an anniversary review.

 

[Iron Lightning]

No, games should be finished when they are released.

 

[Salem_Wolf]

I'm surprised I got as many comments as I did. There are a lot of good points made against my vote of "yes", which is nice to see too. I agree with both sides that, while "unfinished" or poorly played games should get the bad reviews, sometimes there are things that just cannot be tested for. Besides that, too many glitchy games are reviewed highly, say the Fallout 3 and New Vegas games. I've heard it's a great game but too many bugs, some of which are game breaking that have sense been resolved.

Provided they've been changed/improved substantially, yes. It's fair enough to say that you want to play a game as soon as you've bought it, and not wait several months 'till it's playable. It's certainly annoying that developers occasionally release games in unfinished conditions. But if initial reports of bugs and freezes put you off immediately buying a game you would otherwise enjoy, wouldn't you like to know how the game has improved when those problems are fixed?

You could simply not buy it immediately and then, upon reading a re-review that states the game has substantially improved since a major patch, buy it later. Chances are you'd get it much cheaper, too.

Let's not forget that the entire purpose of a review is to guide purchases. To warn us away from terrible games by explaining how and why they're terrible, and to encourage us to buy games that are great by explaining what's great about them. They can also let us know that a game is great, but flawed. Why not let them tell us when a flawed game has improved, too?

I agree completely with you, as evidenced by my opinion of "yes", since reviews are often supplements to word of mouth as a purchasing guide, gamers really often look to reviews as an indicator of how bad a game is. A real smart gamer will take the time to read multiple reviews and judge them, which is how it should be, no ONE review should influence your decision, which is why I love Metacritic. I also believe that reviews should be updated.

Hmm...hard to say. I can see points for both sides of the argument. What if someone doesn't have their console hooked up to the internet? Patches affect them fuck all. Then again, almost everyone DOES have their consoles hooked up to the internet...THEN AGAIN, should the companies who make buggy/poorly made/shitty games really be give that chance, if they're pretty much saying "Hey, you just paid full price for a beta! Don't worry, you'll get a working product...eventually. Assuming the game actually sells well enough to warrant our continued attention, that is."

I'd say, no, as a doing an additional review every time a patch comes out is just beyond impractical (You'd need to hire a whole team just for TF2 reviews!), not to mention I doubt most people would really keep following it after the initial review. What I propose? If a patch comes out that meaningfully affects the game, they could just update the review with a note on the end. That way people without internet connections still know that the game they're buying will be buggy as hell, but if they get their console hooked up, it may eventually be less buggy!

Or, you know, developers could make less buggy games.

Highlighted what I agree with completely, I never thought of just editing a review to say what's been improved in the patches and how it affects the game, but this could be the best way to do it. No confusing "which review am I looking at", no need to screw up a Metacritic score with new reviews that could mess everything up, just a paragraph or two of "this is what was fixed and how it improves or ruins the game". Spot on idea.