Jump to content






- - - - -

...

Posted by NinjaPenguin777, 31 October 2008 · 226 views

...




...
That would be a lot of work for reviewers, unnecessary I'd say. Can you imagine if it was your job to re-review blizzard games? You'd go mad.
Well i dont mean re-review the whole game but at least replay the things that were updated. You wouldnt have to play the whole game over. If they added new maps then just play the new maps. If they updated guns in the multi or single then just play with them. I wouldnt want a whole new review. Just an asterisk type of thing
well effort required aside (and I think that's the first and most major reason) you have to consider other aspects of what a game review it. When I buy a game and take it home to play the game review should give me a gage judge how that experience will play out.

Now perhaps the first thing you do is update your game. You don't represent everyone. For instance my cousin doesn't have a constant internet connection. To rate the game based on updates would harm people in situations like that. You have to judge a game by what's available when you buy it. Of course this is a bit different with online focused games like World of Warcraft, SOCOM and the like. But that's the driving theory.

In larger publications however I believe they do note major game updates. Stuff that radically changes the game .. for better or worse will get an article. That sounds like what you want they just won't put it in the actual game review.

The only place I've seen them edit the review for later content is when they review preview code and the final product fixes a bug I've seen an editor's note there explaining that the specific complaint has been addressed
No.
I think it's sort of pointless to go back and update a review, but I don't see why it couldn't be done.

However, a game should be judged as-is when it is released, and not based on updates that happen weeks or months down the road.

To me, I would expect the experience with a game to get better over time as bugs are caught and fixed. I think it's an extremely rare circumstance where a patch is released that makes a game unplayable, and in that instance, there is usually another patch released almost immediately that will correct that issue.

Reviews for expansion packs are fine. Reviews on significant updates to games (like Burnout Paradise) aren't necessary. Impressions will do just fine in that case.

Besides, who really wants to go back and replay a game just to cover the new enhancements, when reviewing newer games should be priority.
Reviews are more useful when a game isn't out yet. Once a game comes out, and gets updated, it's probably better to hear what people who actually got the game feel about the changes. Of course, that assumes that a non-microscopic number actually bought the game at all, but if not, then you might as well just ignore the game too.

This is not to say that there haven't been reviews of updates. The ones I've seen just end up being shorter because unreleased game reviews get more interest from readers.