Reviews for SimCity - As-Is or Delayed Until Playable?

[ShockandAww]

I'm just wondering what people think of SimCity reviews.

The reviews have basically been done 3 ways:
1. Do not review it until the issues have been fixed
2. Review the product as-is on release day
3. Update the review as necessary as time goes on

IGN is withholding it's review until they can actually play the game and review the game play itself.

Screw Attack reviewed the game and gave it a 1 because of the issues, while Quarter to Three gave it a 2 for the same reasons.

Polygon reviewed the game (giving it a 9.5) and then updated their review to an 8, and after more issues came up they lowered the score again to a 4, where it currently stands.

So, who is right and who is wrong? Or is nobody right or wrong here? How should reviews be done in situations like this?

My Own opinion:



Polygon is doing it right. They are updating the review as necessary. This is imo the best and maybe only unbiased way to do it. If the game is broken at launch you have to call that out and inform your readers. Even though the issues may not be a part of the game play itself, these reviewers should feel obligated to review a product as is and give all the information available for a consumer to make an informed decision.

 

[panzerfaust]

That didn't keep IGN from reviewing Diablo 3, apparently, or any other critic that nominated it as AAA release despite being nigh unplayable in its first 1-2 weeks. The funniest thing about that whole situation was that the game was terrible on top of being unplayable.

The proper way to do it? When the servers give you a chance to play enough of it to form your opinion, write the review and keep all politics out of it. Warn the reader about any ongoing playability issues, but don't sour the whole review because of a temporary problem. This is only frustrating for big sites because it's a race to who gets a full review out first, and not necessarily a helpful one.

Or just keep adjusting your review scores like a complete amateur. "Yes, you see, the servers are back up now, so this game's score will increment up by 1.5 points." How can anyone take that approach seriously?

 

[JasonTerminator]

[quote name='panzerfaust']That didn't keep IGN from reviewing Diablo 3, apparently, or any other critic that nominated it as AAA release despite being nigh unplayable in its first 1-2 weeks. The funniest thing about that whole situation was that the game was terrible on top of being unplayable.

The proper way to do it? When the servers give you a chance to play enough of it to form your opinion, write the review and keep all politics out of it. Warn the reader about any ongoing playability issues, but don't sour the whole review because of a temporary problem. This is only frustrating for big sites because it's a race to who gets a full review out first, and not necessarily a helpful one.

Or just keep adjusting your review scores like a complete amateur. "Yes, you see, the servers are back up now, so this game's score will increment up by 1.5 points." How can anyone take that approach seriously?[/QUOTE]

I dunno, I didn't really have problems with D3 after day 3, and that game sold quite a bit better than SimCity.

Anyway, a game that you can't play is a bad game. If a game ships with game-breaking horrible bugs people give it a horrible review score, so why should SimCity get any other treatment?

 

[panzerfaust]

D3's problems varied from player to player, and the hardcore community (as in the literal 'Hardcore' mode players) was without a question stalled from playing the game.

Why bother scoring a game that you can't play? Can't you just write a non-conclusive article about the situation and tell your readers to chill for a bit? Or are people demanding SimCity get 20% level ratings because of this hate wagon for EA making its usual rounds?

 

[ShockandAww]

[quote name='panzerfaust']The proper way to do it? When the servers give you a chance to play enough of it to form your opinion, write the review and keep all politics out of it. Warn the reader about any ongoing playability issues, but don't sour the whole review because of a temporary problem. This is only frustrating for big sites because it's a race to who gets a full review out first, and not necessarily a helpful one.

Or just keep adjusting your review scores like a complete amateur. "Yes, you see, the servers are back up now, so this game's score will increment up by 1.5 points." How can anyone take that approach seriously?[/QUOTE]

Our disagreement then comes from the way to do a review, and what you are reviewing. I'm saying imo you have to review the whole product as-is. NOT just the gameplay itself if there is more to it than that as there is in this case.

As for adjusting the score, again I think that's fine and the best way to do it. If a month from now SimCity works and I go and see a review saying it doesn't and it's given a score of 1, that is not helpful to me as a potential consumer. At the same time if I see a score of 9 and read nothing of this always online DRM or any current issues, I may have problems after purchasing when it could have easily been avoided had the review fully informed me.

Now if I'm personally reviewing the game I feel bad for the developers but still give the product as a whole a very low score until it's playable. I tell it like it is and inform my audience that the review/score will be updated along with the game. That's not amateur at all imo.

 

[panzerfaust]

Eh, I guess all I'm saying is that as a consumer, I have no reason to be reading SimCity reviews right now, you know? That's how sloppy all this is, and it's not the reviewer's fault that EA is so stupid, but writers should have cleaner protocol to follow for this sort of situation.

 

[ShockandAww]

[quote name='panzerfaust']Eh, I guess all I'm saying is that as a consumer, I have no reason to be reading SimCity reviews right now, you know? That's how sloppy all this is, and it's not the reviewer's fault that EA is so stupid, but writers should have cleaner protocol to follow for this sort of situation.[/QUOTE]

Yep that's true and there's certainly no black and white right or wrong answer to something like this.

I could pretty easily argue for any way of doing it. Give it a 1 because they sent it to you broken and to send a message and prevent issues like this in the future. Or don't review it until you can actually play the game, because that's what you are there to review, the game itself. It may be fantastic behind that crazy DRM.

Edit: Going further I could imagine DRM being incorporated into reviews just like graphics, gameplay, sound and such.
DRM score: 0/5 - Always online required and the servers can't handle it. Shit is broke!
Or DRM score: 2/5 requires connection at startup.

 

[Spokker]

Once the game is released and money is being taken for it, reviews should be fair game.

 

[dothog]

I've always given more credence to opinions of games that come well after launch than I have those that are stated at or near launch. That's likely true for a lot of people. The situation with SimCity creates a hyper-awareness of the reasons why that is: you're avoiding launch hype; you're avoiding launch bugs; and you're usually getting more insight, or at least insight that goes beyond "THIS SUX" or "OMG GOTY."

There's no way the industry is going to stop providing pre-launch review copies, and there's no way reviewers are going to resist the temptation to play and review those and "scoop" their rival reviewers. A few reviewers may stick their noses in the air for games with heavy online components for a while in the post-D3/SC2013 environment, but they'll go back to the old ways soon enough.

That's a long way of saying it's up to the discretion of the reader who actually uses reviews to select his/her purchases. Which in turn is a way of saying that it's up to the reader/potential game owner to simply WAIT. Don't buy at launch. Learn from the QA experiences of the gamers who did buy at launch. Read reviews that weren't written on pre-launch copies. Wait it out, and then decide to buy.