Sould Review Scores Be Revisted?

[Rev]

I occasionally check sites like zergnet to find random articles and one that I found was: http://n4g.com/user/blogpost/washd123/5 ... net_748424.

The article discusses whether modern games should get updated reviews from game sites once patches are released. Games such as Batman Arkham Knight (PC), Tony Hawk Pro Skater 5, etc, were released incredibly buggy and were torn apart by critics. Once patches are released should big game sites revisit the game? From my own personal opinion, I don't think they should because the game was released broken in the first place. However, I know that my opinion is rooted from the fact that I look at games like that as forever incomplete, unless a game of the year copy (or something) comes out to fix all those issues. Also, modern consoles are all about being online, so having a game get fixed through a patch is more expected now.

What do you guys think?

[VideoGameCritic]

I think the game should be reviewed how it is upon initial release. For one thing, there's no guarantee the reader will have access to the updates, or the desire to pull them down. And if the game really is a buggy mess, the publisher really deserves a bad review for putting out such a shoddy product.

[Wallyworld]

If a game is released broken or buggy and it's patched to the point that it turns into a wonderful game it would behoove the game maker to re-release the game as a GOTY edition or directors cut including any DLC. This way the game could be re-reviewed garnering the respect it may deserve. I bet gamers that passed on it the first time might give it another look if it was praised by critics. I'm also pretty sure the developers would like some recognition for all the hard work they've done. It's not really fair to the devoloper if the publisher rushes a game to market before it's ready.

They used to do this all the time during the Original Xbox hay day. Even the 360 had some (but far less) GOTY editions. The market trending away from physical media is the reason they don't and it really is sad.

If they do not re-release the game in the improved version as some kind of special edition on a disc it does not deserve to be re-reviewed.

[Shapur]

It's really a tough call. I'm a physical media purist so I wanna say screw 'em it gets reviewed forever as it was when it was released but is that really going to help consumers? If I'm looking to download a game and every review is griping about bugs that were patched 2 years ago should I care? I wanna know if it works NOW. I think I have to side with the re-review.

Although I'd also like the re-review of games that WERE good and became crappy because of game breaking exploits that the companies never bothered to patch. Read a CoD 3 review and it'll tell you how great everything is, not that it consists of guys shooting you from outside the map. Assuming the servers are even still online. Speaking of that I guess we'd have to update reviews of every online game once they go offline. Sounds like a lot of work for reviewers.

[Rookie1]

Not for patches and fixes, no. Maybe an "Update" below the original review, but not a change to the review itself.

The only time a change may be necessary is if you replay a game and like it/hate it the second time around. There are games I used to hate that I now love, and games I used to love but now hate. Sometimes I figure out a game-play mechanic that I missed years before, or look passed the gimmick that got me as a kid and see how crappy a game really is.

Other than that, just let it be.