2014/8/5: Xbox One: Call of Duty: Ghosts

[Verm1]

In this age of post release patches, I wonder if the Critic could indicate the specific version he reviewed;  whether he has reviewed it out of the box with no patches, with all the patches up to the date of review?

The date of the review isn't sufficient to work out such and some games can change sustainably due to patches (for instance, many would say such about Diablo 3 and that it is a much better game with all the patches, compared to it's original release)

How many, if any, Xbox One and PS4 games display a version number?

Or is there a statement somewhere on the site answering such and I'm just being blind?

[Verm1]

I mean, yes, the regular's may know that the Critic isn't a huge fan of post release patches, DLC etc (i.e he's stated it many times on the forum).

But we don't know how that translates to individual games (i.e he may download patches in some cases and not others, always or never).

[VideoGameCritic]

Good question about the patches.  I reluctantly have my Xbox One on-line, mainly because games tend to complain when it's not.  I believe patches are downloaded automatically, but I'm not 100% sure.

I think consoles made a deal with the devil when they started allowing patches.  Now the games have become moving targets.  I prefer to review games how they are "out of the box" but in this case the console tries to keep the patches transparent, so hard to say.

[ptdebate1]

On the one hand, content delivery via the internet has opened the floodgates to a lot of sloppy products hastily released and then updated later. 

On the other hand, it's allowed companies the option to fix their mistakes and often make good games better. 

How much better could Nintendo have made Super Mario 64, that buggy mess of a game (although it is fun), had they been able to deliver patches to your N64? Maybe the first Final Fantasy would have been more successful had it not been so plagued with non-functioning spells. Secret of Mana certainly could have benefited from some post-release re-examination. And so on.

The thing about isolating your console from the Internet these days is that you're only getting about 30% of the value baked into your $500 console. The Xbox One is designed, first and foremost, as an online multimedia and gaming hub. Games like Call of Duty: Ghosts are great examples of this: the campaign, such as it is, is only a sideshow--an afterthought--to the online multiplayer. Never in my life have I met someone who has actually played a Battlefield campaign, but rumor has it that they blow. This year we've actually seen the release of two console shooters--PVZ: Garden Warfare and Titanfall--that lack an offline mode entirely. The days of offline consoles are decidedly over, my friends, for better and for worse. Those of us who can't accept the "worse" (and I certainly sympathize with you) are better served by a PS2 than these newer, more expensive boxes.

[Astrosmasher1]

I am playing Battlefield 3 and the campaign is good. 

[Vexer1]

I know plenty of people who play Battlefield for the campaign, and they most certainly do not "blow" in the least, i'm definitely not a fan of multiplayer-only games, as more often then not they just plain suck(I.E. Shadowrun on the 360, to call it an insult to the franchise is an understatement).

[Gilly1]

Battlefield campaigns are at the least a bit better than the Call of Duty ones.
Battlefield also tends to look considerably better.
I think it's multi-player is more prone to glitches though.

[Vexer1]

Battlefield 4's multiplayer was particularly awful interms of glitches, all it took to crash the game was blowing up one specific building.