The Nature of Reviews (ME, GTA4, TH etc)

[Akumajou]

At least one (IGN) mentions the occasional loss of control while in combat (in that buttons/triggers stop registering every now and then and sometimes the only fix is to reset). That I'd think qualifies as serious. Additionally, more than one has run across the "getting stuck in random places" bug. Okay, so they claim that you can fix these with patches, but normally a game would never be allowed to ship with that first bug (assuming it's actually caught in the course of the submission process).

Also as far as the slowdowns were concerned, it often sounded more like framerate hitches and combat always went hand in hand.

Moreover, my one big problem with the forgiveness on account of "that can be fixed with a patch" is that I've never heard that uttered with regards to any other game before. A lot of games are forgiven for slowdowns because they just look good... but this one is new to me.

You know, I have seen the IGN review, the Gamespot review and the Gametrailers review and read some others like Eurogamer and I was thinking the same thing you are saying.

Worst of all was Gametrailers forgiving the game by saying the whole "can be fixed with a patch" line, I mean this is a finished, retail game and the XBox 360 was released in Nov 2005 so effectively Bioware, like Bungie before it had well over two whole years of game development time dedicated to their game and for a consumer to experience these issues after reading forgiving reviews is just plain unfair.

Basically I feel that the game should be reviewed in its current form not in its "can be fixed with a patch" form as that will require a complete re-analisys of the game to determine if issues were indeed fixed, I mean damn, its almost like the reviewer/s are somehow partial to the game and want to make sure that they do not spoil its holiday sales.

 

[Platon]

I will for sure get this game and I am sure an 8 is still a very good game, especially if you enjoy the genre or the more strong point of a game and disregard the weaker ones.

On the one hand I agree, that the reviews should not be done with a future patch in mind that might never come. If the game has slowdown it has slowdown, or other glitches, sure maybe they are fixable, but that does not mean they will be and if it is something that is not very major and does not affect the core gamelplay then maybe they should not have released the game and used one month to fix it.

On the other hand, I can see reviewers not being consistent both across games and reviwers that say similar things about a game might end up in quite different scores. Just because two games might have similar fault/bugs that does not mean that reviewers will remove as many point from both games, as the positives of the one game might way stronger and better retract form the negatives. That is why it is good to read what they actually write and not check the final score only, as that might show if the reviewer is a fan of a genre, how much weight they put in the good and the bad and stuff like that.

On the other hand one has to review a game for what it is and ME is an RPG/adventure kind of thing, so knocking down several points because the gun play is not in the same league of that of Halo3 or GoW is also a bit streching it. Most people that get the game will not do it because they will enjoy the shooting part of it...

 

[Asher]

You know, I have seen the IGN review, the Gamespot review and the Gametrailers review and read some others like Eurogamer and I was thinking the same thing you are saying.

Worst of all was Gametrailers forgiving the game by saying the whole "can be fixed with a patch" line, I mean this is a finished, retail game and the XBox 360 was released in Nov 2005 so effectively Bioware, like Bungie before it had well over two whole years of game development time dedicated to their game and for a consumer to experience these issues after reading forgiving reviews is just plain unfair.

Basically I feel that the game should be reviewed in its current form not in its "can be fixed with a patch" form as that will require a complete re-analisys of the game to determine if issues were indeed fixed, I mean damn, its almost like the reviewer/s are somehow partial to the game and want to make sure that they do not spoil its holiday sales.

I couldn't disagree more.

First, to the poster above you, maybe it's a difference in terminology but I consider a flaw to be something rather inherent to the game (eg, a design flaw), which does not include bugs like as he mentioned. I think it's clear the game was popped out of the oven a bit too early to make the holiday season. But I think it's important when reviewing a game to review the game itself, and not technical issues that will likely be fixed in short order with a simple automatic patch. If you're going to review the game with the assumption those bugs will always exist, you need to go back and re-review that game every time a patch comes out to adjust your review -- if it takes large consideration of those bugs.

Put simply, while there are apparently numerous bugs in the game, I don't think there's anything too serious to prevent enjoyment of the game, which is what it's all about. From the impressions of the people here that've played it, I think a lot of people are making a big deal out of bugs in Mass Effect when it's not particularly warranted. From the impressions I've read they seldom get in the way of the game fundamentally.

 

[Ben-Nice]

But I think it's important when reviewing a game to review the game itself, and not technical issues that will likely be fixed in short order with a simple automatic patch.

So reviewers should assume there will be a patches in the near future and rate the game accordingly? That makes no sense whatsoever. You should be rating the game in it's current state. Period.

 

[Asher]

So reviewers should assume there will be a patches in the near future and rate the game accordingly? That makes no sense whatsoever. You should be rating the game in it's current state. Period.

Do you think it's not a safe assumption that Mass Effect will be patched?

Even rating the game in its current state, unless it's unplayable I don't see why the odd bug should dramatically affect the score of the game. I don't rate books based on the odd typo or grammatical error, either.

 

[scificube]

If games are allowed forgiveness because they can be patched then in my view is that the entire review process is then forfeit.

It becomes impossible to criticize a game for any shortcomings whatsoever and likewise prohibit it's entrance to market.

Frame-rate is low/inconsistent....it will be addressed in a patch.
Textures pops in...it will be addressed in a patch.
Connections keep getting dropped...it will be addressed in a patch.
The game freezes...it will be addressed in a patch.

...and do consider the slipperly slope....

The lighting is flat...it will be addressed in a patch.
The gun-play is too formulaic...it will be addressed in a patch.
The main character isn't interesting...it will be be addressed in a patch.

The game isn't fun...it will be addressed in a patch.

---

There is no room to criticize anything at all if defects should be forgiven given they can be fixed in a patch. Likewise there is no room to praise anyone's efforts either...another game's patch is surely going to be more impressive down the line.

----

Not everyone will have access to the patch. How are games rated for those individuals? The reviews will not take up their plight or an immovable double standard is created to address their concerns.

---

The same courtesy is not handed out to all games at present. On this point alone there is reason to take issue. If one game is to be penalized for a said issue it is unfair in another case to grant forgiveness for it because a game can be patched.

Making this exception is not fair to anyone gamers nor developers alike.

That said I'm still going to buy this game as the good far outweighs the bad.

 

[RobertR1]

I look at this game like Oblivion. Just so much stuff that they can't simply QA everything so you end with bugs and slowdowns in certain areas. While we want a flawless RPG from start to finish I don't think we'll see one.

Before someone says Bioshock. It's not. Bioshock is a close quarter combat game with RPG elements. The scale and freedom isn't anything close to what games like Oblivion and Mass Effect are promising.

I expect Fallout3 to also "suffer" from said issues. I'm more lenient of games like this than say if Gears of CoD4 has these issues.

 

[Asher]

If games are allowed forgiveness because they can be patched then in my view is that the entire review process is then forfeit.

It becomes impossible to criticize a game for any shortcomings whatsoever and likewise prohibit it's entrance to market.

Frame-rate is low/inconsistent....it will be addressed in a patch.
Textures pops in...it will be addressed in a patch.
Connections keep getting dropped...it will be addressed in a patch.
The game freezes...it will be addressed in a patch.

...and do consider the slipperly slope....

The lighting is flat...it will be addressed in a patch.
The gun-play is too formulaic...it will be addressed in a patch.
The main character isn't interesting...it will be be addressed in a patch.

I think this is absurd. I don't think it's a slippery slope because I expect a tiny amount of reasoning ability in the reviewers.

I don't think anything you've listed there is reasonable for a patch except for connections getting dropped and game freezes. Those are genuine bugs that are almost always fixed in patches. If you know of any 360 games right now with reproducible freezes and connection drops, then please let me know because all the games I know that have experienced this (eg, Team Fortress 2) have had patches to resolve the issues. Should TF2 for the 360 have been given a lower score on the basis that the first week it was out (the retail version) was so laggy so as to be painful to play? Even though it was promptly fixed by a patch?

Not everyone will have access to the patch. How are games rated for those individuals? The reviews will not take up their plight or an immovable double standard is created to address their concerns.

Are there really a sizable amount of people with the 360 that have no internet connections at all at home? I don't think this is a sensible argument at all. Even if they don't play all the time connected to the net, they can set their 360 infront of their cable/dsl/router, plug it in, patch it, and move it back downstairs.

I think the bugs absolutely deserve mentioning in the reviews. But in terms of scoring the game, I think the game needs to be the focus. If the game is unplayable, then of course that should be reflected in the score. But if the game is absolutely playable (as Mass Effect is), then taking a couple points off for minor bugs that probably won't be around for too long is a bit silly. As I said, I'm not aware many books are reviewed on the merit of grammatical correctness unless it's a huge issue.

 

[scificube]

I think this is absurd. I don't think it's a slippery slope because I expect a tiny amount of reasoning ability in the reviewers.

I don't think anything you've listed there is reasonable for a patch except for connections getting dropped and game freezes. Those are genuine bugs that are almost always fixed in patches. If you know of any 360 games right now with reproducible freezes and connection drops, then please let me know because all the games I know that have experienced this (eg, Team Fortress 2) have had patches to resolve the issues. Should TF2 for the 360 have been given a lower score on the basis that the first week it was out (the retail version) was so laggy so as to be painful to play? Even though it was promptly fixed by a patch?


Are there really a sizable amount of people with the 360 that have no internet connections at all at home? I don't think this is a sensible argument at all. Even if they don't play all the time connected to the net, they can set their 360 infront of their cable/dsl/router, plug it in, patch it, and move it back downstairs.

I think the bugs absolutely deserve mentioning in the reviews. But in terms of scoring the game, I think the game needs to be the focus. If the game is unplayable, then of course that should be reflected in the score. But if the game is absolutely playable (as Mass Effect is), then taking a couple points off for minor bugs that probably won't be around for too long is a bit silly. As I said, I'm not aware many books are reviewed on the merit of grammatical correctness unless it's a huge issue.

What is absurd about measuring something according to a standard without exceptions (at least those you don't extend to everyone)?

Secondly how can you expect reviewers to use reason when by default they would be being well...unreasonable? Anyhow, reason has no role to play here. If a defect is found. It is to be reported and the defect is to affect the score of a game. Likewise if a defect is found it is to be reported and it is to affect whether the game is in an acceptable state to come to market.

Reasoning by and large has nothing to do with it. One can't reason away the reality of the situation. That is giving the parties involved far too much latitude in this regard.

If reason where to play a role by what reasoning could one not accept the complaint that a game should score better etc because they intend to improve it later with a patch? There is no reasonable argument against the one who is complaining no matter how outlandish the claim they would be making.

Also I never said those issues directly affected Mass Affect or any particular game for that matter. You are thinking I am taking issue with Mass Affect itself when I am addressing other matters.

If you adjust your view I'm sure you'll see what I'm really getting at.

----

You are not seriously asking me how many people have a 360 who are not online are you?

----

Are you seriously making the argument that games should not be reviewed in the state they are found in, but instead based on some potentially better state they will be in later...that many will not be able to take advantage of?

----

Again I am not ragging Mass Affect if this is your concern.

 

[Asher]

What is absurd about measuring something according to a standard without exceptions (at least those you don't extend to everyone)?

Secondly how can you expect reviewers to use reason when by default they would be being well...unreasonable? Anyhow, reason has no role to play here. If a defect is found. It is to be reported and the defect is to affect the score of a game. Likewise if a defect is found it is to be reported and it is to affect whether the game is in an acceptable state to come to market.

Reasoning by and large has nothing to do with it. One can't reason away the reality of the situation. That is giving the parties involved far too much latitude in this regard.

Reasoning has everything to do with it. I expect genuine defects like crashes to be fixed in patches on consoles, because historically this is true and I see no reason for it to differ in this case. I do not expect the gameplay to change, graphics engine to be rewritten, framerate to improve, etc.

I don't think that asking people to use their heads when they review is asking too much. In fact, I think we could use a lot more of it.

Also I never said those issues directly affected Mass Affect or any particular game for that matter. You are thinking I am taking issue with Mass Affect itself when I am addressing other matters.

If you adjust your view I'm sure you'll see what I'm really getting at.

I'm not referring to you referring to Mass Effect. I am speaking generally in reviews, and I even threw in other games as an example.

I'm saying that simple bugs that are very likely to be fixed in a patch should not dramatically affect a review score. That's it.

You are not seriously asking me how many people have a 360 who are not online are you?

I'm asking you how many people with 360s have no internet in the household. Because if they have internet, they can patch their games. You were the one making the case that not everybody can patch, so the onus is on you to show us that there's a sizable amount of 360 owners without an internet connection in their home.

Are you seriously making the argument that games should not be reviewed in the state they are found in, but instead based on some potentially better state they will be in later...that many will not be able to take advantage of?

First, "many will not be able to take advantage of"? I need those figures of how many people lack internet connections at home if you're going to continue leaning on that argument.

Second, games should be reviewed in the stat they are found. Unless the bugs are so common and so critical to the point of actually affecting the game (eg, can't continue playing due to corrupted saves, critical error in a boss that impedes progress, etc), then minor issues should not impact the review of the game in any significant way since they can, and will, likely be addressed.

So, I'll say this again. Unless the bugs are so severe and so frequent as to get in the way of the game itself, I don't think this should have a significant bearing on the overall review of the game.

Again I am not ragging Mass Affect if this is your concern.

It is not. I've not played the game yet, as I have said...I ordered it today. I am speaking in general.

 

[scificube]

Reasoning has everything to do with it.

I certainly will need proof of this claim. You may begin with TCR's and finish with journalistic standards although if you have more to add that would be welcome too.

I expect genuine defects like crashes to be fixed in patches on consoles, because historically this is true and I see no reason for it to differ in this case.

Developers should do their best to ensure games do not have said issues before they come to market. If they do, then they should be "fairly" criticized for having them.

Console games do not have a history of being patched and frankly a future where this would become common place is not is not one that I would enjoy.

I do not expect the gameplay to change, graphics engine to be rewritten, framerate to improve, etc.

There is nothing to stop that from happening unless you have proof to the contrary. There is nothing to stop one from saying it will happen even if it never does...again unless you can prove this is not possible.

I don't think that asking people to use their heads when they review is asking too much. In fact, I think we could use a lot more of it.

It certainly is not asking a lot to ask reviewers to use their heads. After all, that is what they are paid to do. However, this does not mean "using their heads" extends to all things that they do.

I feel there are many reviewers who use their head well enough so I mean no disrespect to them.

I'm not referring to you referring to Mass Effect. I am speaking generally in reviews, and I even threw in other games as an example.

Ok then so you understand this isn't about Mass Affect. Good. Still I don't see the need to go fishing for games to make my point when it is not at all necessary to do so.

I'm saying that simple bugs that are very likely to be fixed in a patch should not dramatically affect a review score. That's it.

If you'll oblige me to look at my posts again you'll notice I never said how much a found defect should affect a game. I only said that it should. Further it should not be forgiven on the basis that it could be rectified in a patch unless one extends the same courtesy to all games.

This absolutely has not happened for every game on the market...not many games on the market...not even a significant minority of games on the market. It has not happened and it shouldn't.

I'm asking you how many people with 360s have no internet in the household. Because if they have internet, they can patch their games. You were the one making the case that not everybody can patch, so the onus is on you to show us that there's a sizable amount of 360 owners without an internet connection in their home.

I really have to prove this? I think not as it is common knowledge that online players are in the distinct minority of all game players on consoles be they playing on MS platforms or otherwise. I'm not going treasure hunting for what everyone full well knows.

However, I will for the sake of argument suppose what you say is true for a moment. It is certainly true that if players can get online they can patch their games. Let's say that is exactly what players do. Now consider that they don't do this often. There are numerous problems even with this and I won't get into all them but I will toss a few out to illustrate my point.

1. Let's say 10 patches come out for games on the market in the interim between online activities for a player.

Do you think it would be good for the player to have to download all these patches? What if the player isn't even given a choice?

2. What if said patches invalidate their save games? Will this make for happy players?

3. What if the patches themselves need patches? Where does it end?

4. What if a patch totally changes the game experience? What then?

ex. Lair -> adds dual analog support, adds an aiming reticule, etc.

5. So when are gamers to know what is game is really delivering what it promised to them or if a game is actually worth a purchase? After the patch? When will that be?

I'm sure I can on for a while and probably come up with more potent examples but I really don't want to any longer.

First, "many will not be able to take advantage of"? I need those figures of how many people lack internet connections at home if you're going to continue leaning on that argument.

Why is it acceptable or a good thing to rely on patches in the first place? Why don't you tell me that first while you're handing out assignments.

Why don't you tell me how big all these patches will be and how they're guaranteed to work and how they won't affect players game experiences in any negative way whatsoever?

Why should the player have to take on the responsibility of ensuring that they get the best experience from a developer? Is it the player's fault their experience sucks because they didn't have access to a patch or simply didn't elect to download it?

Why should players have to wait for patches to get good gaming experiences?

Second, games should be reviewed in the stat they are found. Unless the bugs are so common and so critical to the point of actually affecting the game (eg, can't continue playing due to corrupted saves, critical error in a boss that impedes progress, etc), then minor issues should not impact the review of the game in any significant way since they can, and will, likely be addressed.

I have already expressed that I did not dictate just how a defect should affect a score. It should be uniform to everyone though and to ignore it because a patch can potentially come later is no reason why that should not happen.

Extend the same courtesy to everyone or the same criticism to everyone. Period.

So, I'll say this again. Unless the bugs are so severe and so frequent as to get in the way of the game itself, I don't think this should have a significant bearing on the overall review of the game.

Death by degrees....

Why do the bugs have to be severe?
Why do they have to be frequent? How many times is frequent?

Defects should affect the score. How significantly they do should be the same for everyone. There is no reason to ignore them whether a patch is coming or not.

You seem to be describing something like this...until a game is unplayable defects really shouldn't affect the score.

Where is the cutt-off line? Where is the line in the sand?

I am describing this. Every defect you know about should affect the score. The multiplicity of any defects should affect the score. If a game has severe defects they will be accounted for and the score will reflect this. If a game has minor defects they will be accounted for and the score will affect this. There is no forgiveness. What's found is found should be noted and taken into consideration.

Patches should not even be a consideration unless the patch itself is being reviewed. If a patch actually does fix issues in a game then there is nothing to stop the game from being reviewed again once the patch is out.

 

[-tkf-]

Do you think it's not a safe assumption that Mass Effect will be patched?

Even rating the game in its current state, unless it's unplayable I don't see why the odd bug should dramatically affect the score of the game. I don't rate books based on the odd typo or grammatical error, either.

"While Lair has it´s moments the only real issue is the controls, lucky for us they can be patched, a solid nine it is for this first Factor 5 game on the PS3" - Eurogamer, Gamespot, IGN, 1UP

I don´t think so

 

[RobertR1]

There's a difference between flawed controls and game glitches.

I assume you were around when Oblivion came out. It was glitch city. Some being major showstoppers like the Vampire quest bug. Lots of places to get your character stuck also. Not to mention Horsie running away for no reason and items missing from your safe houses! However, your character still turned left 10/10! I'm sure Shephard won't have an issue turning left when told.

In about a week when tons of people have played through it, we'll see how many bugs the game really has and to what degree. I'm sure Bioware will be watching also.

 

[-tkf-]

There's a difference between flawed controls and game glitches.

I assume you were around when Oblivion came out. It was glitch city. Some being major showstoppers like the Vampire quest bug. Lots of places to get your character stuck also. Not to mention Horsie running away for no reason and items missing from your safe houses! However, your character still turned left 10/10! I'm sure Shephard won't have an issue turning left when told.

In about a week when tons of people have played through it, we'll see how many bugs the game really has and to what degree. I'm sure Bioware will be watching also.

So we draw the line at glitches because they always get patched? I just made an extreme example, hell if Factor 5 really did add old school controls that flaw might actually be removed.

 

[Asher]

So we draw the line at glitches because they always get patched? I just made an extreme example, hell if Factor 5 really did add old school controls that flaw might actually be removed.

Yes, we draw the line at glitches that will get patched.

The line between glitches and design changes are huge.

 

[RobertR1]

So we draw the line at glitches because they always get patched? I just made an extreme example, hell if Factor 5 really did add old school controls that flaw might actually be removed.

So if flawed control are glitches, then we don't draw a line. We wait and see what the glitches are and how the developer reacts. If they don't fix them or worse, make excuses for them, they're shit in my book. If they do go on to address the issues, credit to them.

The guy from Factor 5 went on record claiming that the whole 8/10 was acceptable. That was their way of addressing it. Maybe it was patchable or maybe it wasn't thus he was defending the flaw to that degrees. We'll never know. What we know is the path Factor 5 took to addressing the major issues with the game.

 

[Asher]

I certainly will need proof of this claim. You may begin with TCR's and finish with journalistic standards although if you have more to add that would be welcome too.

Maybe you don't understand. What "proof" do you need of my claim that reviewers should use reasoning when reviewing a game? I'm genuinely perplexed why you keep latching on to this.

Developers should do their best to ensure games do not have said issues before they come to market. If they do, then they should be "fairly" criticized for having them.

Developers don't usually get to choose when their games get released, the publishers get to do that. This is a case of a game clearly pushed for release to make the holiday rush. I don't think the game itself should be blasted for minor glitches that are sure to be fixed in a patch. Many times a patch is available the day the game is out on the street due to the lag in RTM and street dates.

Console games do not have a history of being patched and frankly a future where this would become common place is not is not one that I would enjoy.

Which Xbox 360 game has not been patched? Starting with the Xbox, this is common and popular. PS3 games as well get patched. This is very common, it's to be expected, and it's here to stay. Time to get used to it.

There is nothing to stop that from happening unless you have proof to the contrary. There is nothing to stop one from saying it will happen even if it never does...again unless you can prove this is not possible.

This is stupid. There's nothing "stopping it" from happening, but it's FAR from the norm and should not be expected.

The vast majority of our differences revolve around this: you don't draw a distinction between fixing a crashing bug and recoding the graphics engine. I do. I think one is normal, one is expected, and the other is absurd to expect.

If you'll oblige me to look at my posts again you'll notice I never said how much a found defect should affect a game. I only said that it should. Further it should not be forgiven on the basis that it could be rectified in a patch unless one extends the same courtesy to all games.

And why wouldn't they extend the same courtesy to all games? My whole point is that's exactly what should happen. Minor bugs should not bring down the score of a game unless they render the game unplayable. Just like the strength of a novel remains even if it has some typos and grammatical errors.

This absolutely has not happened for every game on the market...not many games on the market...not even a significant minority of games on the market. It has not happened and it shouldn't

I can't think of a single Xbox 360 game I have right now that has NOT had a patch. My NHL 08 game was patched the day it launched, and that's not for rosters...

I really have to prove this? I think not as it is common knowledge that online players are in the distinct minority of all game players on consoles be they playing on MS platforms or otherwise. I'm not going treasure hunting for what everyone full well knows.

You are intentionally misrepresenting my claim. I'm not saying everyone on their Xbox 360 games online. Not even close.

I'm saying this: the VAST, VAST, VAST majority of households with the Xbox 360 will have internet access. This is the only requirement to patching Xbox 360 games. You don't need to play online, all you need to do is hook the thing up to the internet once to update it. Lug it upstairs to your den, plug it in, update it.

However, I will for the sake of argument suppose what you say is true for a moment. It is certainly true that if players can get online they can patch their games. Let's say that is exactly what players do. Now consider that they don't do this often. There are numerous problems even with this and I won't get into all them but I will toss a few out to illustrate my point.

1. Let's say 10 patches come out for games on the market in the interim between online activities for a player.

Do you think it would be good for the player to have to download all these patches? What if the player isn't even given a choice?

What? On the 360 it always does it in one update, from my experience. Regardless if there was 2 or more released in the time before you updated. If the player is encountering bugs, it's not unreasonable that they'd go and check for updates. This is how I do it on my PC all the time, I play games then if I encounter bugs I check if there's a patch online, then download it.

2. What if said patches invalidate their save games? Will this make for happy players?

Name one console patch that did this...I'm not even sure this is possible due to MS certification standards. A very silly point.

3. What if the patches themselves need patches? Where does it end?

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything at all with home internet use and patching games. Console game patches are here and they are frequent. You seem to think they're incredibly rare. Do you play any modern consoles at all connected to the internet?

4. What if a patch totally changes the game experience? What then?

Are you serious? I'm starting to get frustrated, but I don't see what this has to do with anything.

What if the patch hacked into my home PC, stole my bank account information, and sent me 1 million dollars?

ex. Lair -> adds dual analog support, adds an aiming reticule, etc.

Yes, I see your point. This would be terrible and completely invalidates my point that we can expect glaring crashing bugs to be fixed in patches.

I'm sure I can on for a while and probably come up with more potent examples but I really don't want to any longer.

Please don't, your examples had no relevance and proved no point.

Why is it acceptable or a good thing to rely on patches in the first place?

It's how it is. I don't wish to debate philosophy of the industry with you. Again, you seem to think patches are rare. They are not. They are here. Get used to it.

Why don't you tell me how big all these patches will be and how they're guaranteed to work and how they won't affect players game experiences in any negative way whatsoever?

I've never had a 360 patch take more than 10 seconds to install. I've never had any negatively impact my gameplay. Not sure, again, what point you are trying to make.

Why should the player have to take on the responsibility of ensuring that they get the best experience from a developer? Is it the player's fault their experience sucks because they didn't have access to a patch or simply didn't elect to download it?

Why should players have to wait for patches to get good gaming experiences?

Once again. I'm not interested in debating this philosophically with you. I'm pragmatic. Patches are here, and it's time to accept that instead of arguing. This has no bearing on our discussion regarding game reviews.

Again, if you're making the point that only the current state can be evaluated and we must take off marks for each and every defect, then you must -- to be accurate -- update this review after every patch. If we had used your method to review Team Fortress 2 for its release, it'd probably get 5/10 due to severe lag issues. If I reviewed it now, probably 9/10. When reviewing, it's important to review the GAME itself. If there are major technical issues for a big title release, it is reasonable (there's that word again) to expect it to be fixed. So the correct course of action, IMO, is to detail the issues you encountered when you play, then review the game as the game itself...not as a code audit.

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

I think this is absurd. I don't think it's a slippery slope because I expect a tiny amount of reasoning ability in the reviewers.

And what happens if their reasoning turns out to be wrong? Should they retract their scores and re-evaluate or just throw up their hands and say "whatever"? What happens when they don't assume that something can be fixed by a patch and give the game a lower score, and everything they penalized the game for does get repaired in a patch? Why should this be an assumption for only a handful of games (seeing as how this courtesy is by no means universally extended)?

I don't think anything you've listed there is reasonable for a patch except for connections getting dropped and game freezes.

Actually, everything he mentioned prior to the "slippery slope" part is theoretically reparable in a downloadable patch. And therein lies the problem. You can't possibly expect a reviewer to have a good idea of what could be fixed with a patch -- in fact, given their understanding of how things work, I'd say you can almost always expect them to have a very poor idea of what can be addressed by a downloadable update/patch.

Should TF2 for the 360 have been given a lower score on the basis that the first week it was out (the retail version) was so laggy so as to be painful to play? Even though it was promptly fixed by a patch?

Again, what if this never happened? Should the game be forgiven because the reviewers thought it could be fixed?

You make it sound as if there is no difference whatsoever between : Penalizing a game for its flaws, and then re-evaluating *if* a patch comes out to fix them... Giving a game two scores based on "right now" and "if the things we expect to be patched are indeed patched"... or not penalizing a game at all because you're just going to assume that there will be a patch to fix everything... The former two qualify as erring on the side of caution. The last most definitely does not.

Making the assumption is equivalent to saying that the game is out, but it's not *reeaaally* out. When the patch is out, then you'll really see it.

Are there really a sizable amount of people with the 360 that have no internet connections at all at home?

Yes, actually. Plus not being able to apply a patch is something that applies to people who might have purchased the Core Xbox 360 whether they have an internet connection or not.

I think the bugs absolutely deserve mentioning in the reviews. But in terms of scoring the game, I think the game needs to be the focus. If the game is unplayable, then of course that should be reflected in the score. But if the game is absolutely playable (as Mass Effect is), then taking a couple points off for minor bugs that probably won't be around for too long is a bit silly.

By that logic, there should never be a review that penalizes a game for screen tearing. There should never be a review that penalizes a game for slow loading times because that doesn't happen during gameplay. There should never be a review that complains about controls that don't always respond because that can be fixed in a patch.

I don't think that asking people to use their heads when they review is asking too much. In fact, I think we could use a lot more of it.

Using their heads would involve being sensible, and making blind assumptions never is and never will be sensible. Especially not when software is the object in question.

Second, games should be reviewed in the stat they are found. Unless the bugs are so common and so critical to the point of actually affecting the game (eg, can't continue playing due to corrupted saves, critical error in a boss that impedes progress, etc), then minor issues should not impact the review of the game in any significant way since they can, and will, likely be addressed.

How does loss of combat control not qualify as affecting the game? How does getting stuck and possibly forced to reset not qualify as affecting the game? If a bug is just a brief annoyance, it's a brief annoyance... What if a bug creates a showstopper type of condition? Sure they can be fixed in a patch, but to say the game is unaffected is an absolute absurdity. I'm okay with saying they don't matter after a patch is out. Not before. Moreover, what would that mean to me as a consumer? Should I go buy the game and wait for the patch? Or should I wait for the patch and then buy the game? Bioware would obviously be much happier if I did the former...

So, I'll say this again. Unless the bugs are so severe and so frequent as to get in the way of the game itself, I don't think this should have a significant bearing on the overall review of the game.

What is your definition of severe? What is your definition of frequent? Should something never be considered critical if it isn't both severe and frequent? Where does the line get drawn between what is unacceptable and what isn't? What should we assume can be patched and can't? If you can't give a clear-cut answer, then posing that question to reviewers is asking for trouble.

 

[scificube]

Maybe you don't understand. What "proof" do you need of my claim that reviewers should use reasoning when reviewing a game? I'm genuinely perplexed why you keep latching on to this.

I understand.

Reason about - gameplay mechanics, comparison with peers, what's there to or not to get excited about etc

Don't reason about - what's there on a technical level, why it should or should not be forgiven. Report what's there and apply the same standard to all games.

Do you understand?

Developers don't usually get to choose when their games get released, the publishers get to do that. This is a case of a game clearly pushed for release to make the holiday rush. I don't think the game itself should be blasted for minor glitches that are sure to be fixed in a patch. Many times a patch is available the day the game is out on the street due to the lag in RTM and street dates.

Aaaaaaarrrrggggghhhhh!!!!!

This isn't about Mass Affect. You said you understood that.

*sigh*

I never said Mass Affect should get blasted. I would hope that it isn't. It deserves better than that.

However, it should be graded according to the same standard as other games and whether patches are coming or not should not affect how it is critiqued.

Whether a developer or a publisher wishes to push a game that isn't ready is irrelevant. It shouldn't happen whomever is responsible. (again this is not in specific reference to Mass Affect)

Whether the game was pushed out the door to be ready for the holiday season is also irrelevant. The holiday season doesn't make a game any more or any less than it is. How is a game is reviewed is based on the game itself. Not outside forces or circumstance.

Reviewers should not be asked to grant scores based on vacuous promises that what they currently see is not really what the game will be like when the game hits the streets. Secondly, when reviewers are handed the final review copy this is what they should review because THIS is the only thing they can GUARANTEE anyone purchasing the game will get.

If they review a game based on a future patch they do not currently have on hand then they are only speculating and not presenting anything on the facts in front of them.

If they wish they can delay the review until the patch is available or review a title again once the patch is available to the public. However, it should be made clear they are reviewing a patched version of the game so that gamers know and understand they will not get the same experience being critiqued unless they likewise patch their game.

Which Xbox 360 game has not been patched? Starting with the Xbox, this is common and popular. PS3 games as well get patched. This is very common, it's to be expected, and it's here to stay. Time to get used to it.

How would I identify which Xbox360 games have not been patched? First I would need to know who promised to deliver a patch and then who actually delivered a patch. You are asking for insight into things which very few are privy to know...or at least care about.

Yes games do get patched.

Is it historically common place for console games to get patched? No.

Should it become common place? No. Consoles are fixed hardware with stable APIs etc making for a great many variables to never be in play. It makes no sense to wholesale abandon TCRs and instead move to a patch heavy model. That would introduce far more problems than it would solve.

Should patching be available when circumstances dictate its needed? Yes.

Is it time to get used to it? Nope.

This is stupid. There's nothing "stopping it" from happening, but it's FAR from the norm and should not be expected.

Hehe sorry if you consider what I say to be stupid. Why bother conversing with me if that's how you feel?

I am glad you are being honest here though. However, I do not and did not say it was something that would become the norm or should be expected. That would be a slight to many a good development house etc. to suggest as much.

What I was implying that "some" would try their hand and in doing so how would anyone be able to turn them away. Another way to look at it is that it's far from normal for people to kill one another and it's really not expected that people would do it.

But it happens, and this is enough to have things in place to combat such behavior.

The vast majority of our differences revolve around this: you don't draw a distinction between fixing a crashing bug and recoding the graphics engine. I do. I think one is normal, one is expected, and the other is absurd to expect.

I actually do draw a distinction between these things. My view does not hinge on this distinction but something else.

I am sorry if you feel my stance is absurd. That is unfortunate.

And why wouldn't they extend the same courtesy to all games? My whole point is that's exactly what should happen. Minor bugs should not bring down the score of a game unless they render the game unplayable. Just like the strength of a novel remains even if it has some typos and grammatical errors.

Again I remind you that I do not dictate how much a defect on any kind should affect a critique of a game. If a game is greater than its defects then it will surely will be reflected in how it is critically received.

There are two issues I am talking about.
1. Fairness - not all games are granted forgiveness for their faults with a promise that a patch is coming to fix them.

2. It would be very bad even if this were the case.

As for you argument about playability I will address that now. I do not accept this at all. There are many defects that should affect a game's scored significantly despite them not affecting how playable a game is.

Screen tearing - the game will be playable with or without it.

selective AA - the game will be playable with or without it.
selecive AF- the game will be playable with or without it.
LOD "POP" - the game will be playable with or without it.
Jerky animations - the game will be playable with or without it.
Clipping - the game will be playable with or without it
Floating bodies, looping AI routines that get stuck, corrupt save games, glitch exploits....and the list goes on and on.

Defects need not be those which cause crashes or render a game unplayable to be significant.

That frankly is irrelevant as to whether they should be considered or not. They should be considered. How much they affect things is another matter. However, patches are still no reason why any defect should not be considered.

I can't think of a single Xbox 360 game I have right now that has NOT had a patch. My NHL 08 game was patched the day it launched, and that's not for rosters...

Well good for you. The same cannot be said for everyone.

Still when you purchased those games you did not take it for granted that any issues a reviewer mentioned were irrelevant because you would get a patch that made everything rosy? Or did you? You would be the first person I know who does this.

You are intentionally misrepresenting my claim. I'm not saying everyone on their Xbox 360 games online. Not even close.

I never claimed you said that. You asked me to give you numbers for online participants who have an X360. I viewed that as a worthless exercise for the reasons I outlined.

I'm saying this: the VAST, VAST, VAST majority of households with the Xbox 360 will have internet access. This is the only requirement to patching Xbox 360 games. You don't need to play online, all you need to do is hook the thing up to the internet once to update it. Lug it upstairs to your den, plug it in, update it.

So what? Most will never do that and certainly not frequently. That is my point.

What? On the 360 it always does it in one update, from my experience. Regardless if there was 2 or more released in the time before you updated. If the player is encountering bugs, it's not unreasonable that they'd go and check for updates. This is how I do it on my PC all the time, I play games then if I encounter bugs I check if there's a patch online, then download it.

Console players are not PC players. The two groups are not synonymous. I suppose your answer is that its a good thing as that is what I asked.

Name one console patch that did this...I'm not even sure this is possible due to MS certification standards. A very silly point.

Fair enough. I was typing quickly.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything at all with home internet use and patching games. Console game patches are here and they are frequent. You seem to think they're incredibly rare. Do you play any modern consoles at all connected to the internet?

I am going to buy Mass Affect as you were made aware of earlier. A silly point indeed...

Are you serious? I'm starting to get frustrated, but I don't see what this has to do with anything.

What if the patch hacked into my home PC, stole my bank account information, and sent me 1 million dollars?

Really it was just a question. You shouldn't let such things frustrate you. It's not like I said what you were saying was absurd or silly or anything like that...

Yes, I see your point. This would be terrible and completely invalidates my point that we can expect glaring crashing bugs to be fixed in patches.

Now really do you? Well I suppose we're still waiting for that supposed patch Eurogamer was referring to. Not to mention the question had nothing to do with bugs but other issues but ok. Sure thing, you understand things perfectly.

It's how it is. I don't wish to debate philosophy of the industry with you. Again, you seem to think patches are rare. They are not. They are here. Get used to it.

I'll thank you kindly to not tell me what to do. I mean really.

I've never had a 360 patch take more than 10 seconds to install. I've never had any negatively impact my gameplay. Not sure, again, what point you are trying to make.

I wasn't speaking to past issues but what could happen. This is most likely the reason you haven't experienced what I am referring to. The conditions in the past are not like unto the conditions in the future allowing for different things to happen.

That should clarify things a bit for you.

Once again. I'm not interested in debating this philosophically with you. I'm pragmatic. Patches are here, and it's time to accept that instead of arguing. This has no bearing on our discussion regarding game reviews.

Again, if you're making the point that only the current state can be evaluated and we must take off marks for each and every defect, then you must -- to be accurate -- update this review after every patch.

I must'nt do a thing as I am not a reviewer. However, it is up to a reviewer, review site, or game magazine what they choose to review or not.

A patch coming out does not dictate that they have to give it any attention whatsoever. I certainly see how it would be valuable to the those who rely on reviews however.

Hehe it is amusing that you think I'm asserting philosophic arguments however. I don't see where philosophy has entered the discussion from any point by you or I.

If we had used your method to review Team Fortress 2 for its release, it'd probably get 5/10 due to severe lag issues. If I reviewed it now, probably 9/10. When reviewing, it's important to review the GAME itself. If there are major technical issues for a big title release, it is reasonable (there's that word again) to expect it to be fixed. So the correct course of action, IMO, is to detail the issues you encountered when you play, then review the game as the game itself...not as a code audit.

Lag issues drops the game score by 5 points? According to my method....would you care to enlighten me as to what my method for scoring the game that way would actually be?

Anyhow it's certainly a good thing that no...games don't have to reviewed in this manner or whatever you think I suggested earlier.

I never said a review shouldn't focus on the game itself. I said that if a game has defects they should be accounted for in the review and to the degree that they are - this should be so for all games.

I certainly did not suggest reviewers should be performing anything similar to code audits etc.


-----

Perhaps it would be best to just agree to disagree. It seems obvious to me that we don't see things the same way and unfortunately there's not much middle ground.

 

[PARANOiA]

Some games need to be reviewed assuming there will be patches... otherwise, Orange Box/TF2 would have been heavily marked down. That was (and IIRC still is) pretty much unplayable on big teams. Same with games like WoW, Hellgate, Diablo, LOTRO, etc.

Single player games that have no need of online, however, need to be reviewed on the assumption that it will be played out of the box. It's that simple.