You still haven’t answered the question. How long do you wait?
Look, the reality is that game reviews need to be published in a pretty short window to get any readers. If the review was done prior to the actual public release (as most are) then a Day-0 patch won’t factor into the review anyway.
JM1
3862
I don’t have a problem with them reviewing the code that’s on the DVDs being sold in the shops. I would also like games companies to not have a “day 0” patch and instead sell products that are complete. Perhaps I’m living in a fantasy world.
There is a bright spot in the thread.
As a “thing”, at least as far as I’m aware, when sites are saying they only review Gold Masters, they’re not actually talking about their position on patches - more stressing they don’t review pre-release late-beta code.
At least in my experience, the standard is you review what the gamer is playing. And in the days of auto-patching, it’s hard not to, even if you don’t want to.
KG
Mitya
3866
I got mine a few days ago, I assume they’re all on the way.
Talorc
3867
Mark has the right answer to my mind.
Not only that, technically speaking, it seems a very every task these days to FORCE users to install the latest available version when the “gold master” is first installed - I believe Starcraft II did this?
I also don’t get all the concern for the poor unwashed masses with crap or metered internet. It is the same as complaining about the people running systems under the minimum spec not being catered for by the reviewer.
“but what about the people running with only 256Mb and a Voodoo 3!!! You didnt say how the game was for them!!”
If it says on the box “internet connection required” I am fine with a patch being mandatory.
That’s in response to the FAQ, “Sometimes you review games before they’re even out in stores. Does that mean you review games before they’re finished?” It’s saying that they don’t review betas, not that they won’t review patched versions.
I don’t see the point in a we-won’t-install-any-patches policy for reviews. I mean, yes, publishers shouldn’t put out unfinished games with the expectation of patching them after release. And, yes, there are some people who can’t easily download gargantuan patches. For most people, however, the question of whether to buy depends on the quality of the game as it currently stands, not as it was at release.
So long as the reviewer is clear on what version they played, I would say that it’s entirely acceptable to review the latest patches available at the time of the review.
Oghier
3870
I know reviewers want to be first across the line, but as a customer, I want a review of the game I will actually play. If there’s a day zero patch, I’d much rather read a review that includes those changes.
olaf
3871
That seems to be a common sense approach that I agree with. I think it would be stupid to review a game ignoring an available patch that improved it. Who does that serve? No one.
In any case. Where are the reviews? Of the shipped version? Of the ‘day 0’ version? Of the current version?
Are all of these game sites giving Stardock special treatment? Why?
And keeping with my previous snarky post about Civ V, who wants to form a modding group for MoM Civ V? FfH is pretty neat, but it ain’t MoM.
I think games should be reviewed as the version the game will be when the review publishes. Luckily, no reviews were out for Elemental on release day, or even still today, six days later. Pretty strange.
It is too long. It’s actually 22 days.
I’ll give you an answer, but I doubt you’ll like it: in this case, the publisher.
Here’s why -
First, consider who bought the game. It’s a niche product for a niche market, out of whom 99.5% will have access to the patches that came out at launch and then those that were released within a few days. For that .5%, it sucks but they can still use a USB drive to get them from a friend’s PC. For that .01% that can’t do that, I’d have to ask them why they’re buying this game anyway because it doesn’t run on a 286SX being powered by a propane generator in the middle of the woods.
Second, there is nothing - NOTHING - stopping a reviewer from noting both the initial state of the game and then continuing on with the review of the game in the state that anyone then reading their magazine/website would be playing it in.
Third, and connected to the above, this is an issue of trade journalism versus news journalism. Was it news that Elemental shipped in not-so-great shape? Sure, but a review’s primary purpose is to serve potential customers primarily by letting them know what’s available on the market and to give them an idea of what they may be interested in buying. Is it more helpful for that purpose to show what it was like at release or show how it would be if they dropped their cash on it now? The latter.
So a news journal would normally print how the game was when it shipped and then perhaps mention patches that were available, while a games mag would often print how it is now and then perhaps mention what shape it was in when it shipped.
Fourth and final, if a company ships a F- game which they almost immediately make into a A+ (not saying those are the grades for Elemental), if reviews focus on the F- then it will hurt their bottom line much more significantly than it would hurt most individuals’ wallets.
Now do you have to care about the publishers? Heck, no. But you asked the question …
Talorc
3876
Which reviews were you waiting for? It is hardly going to be top of the “to do” list for sites like IGN, Gamespot.
There are plenty of impressions at PC centric sites - Fidgit / Tom, RPS, RPGWatch, 1up, Shacknews.
1up even calls theirs a “review”, but this may be open to debate.
One of the problems with reviewing the patched game that I see is this: the reader isn’t given an understanding of just how last-minute or half-assed some of the additional “content” is.
It’s one thing to add some minor technical bug fixes in the 2-3 weeks between gold and release.
It’s another to patch in mechanics changes to combat, magic, etc. Anything done on such a rushed basis is half-assed, even if it turns out to be working code.
Ultimately, I think a reviewer should focus the review on the current version at review time (indicating what they are reviewing) but make some informed comments about what got patched in, and how that fits into the overall game (e.g., something more than patch notes).
It would be significant to me, as a buyer, to know that the developer was implementing core mechanics changes at the last second- that’s a sign of half-baked development.
Talorc
3878
If a reviewer can’t spot something that is half-assed or half-baked without forensically examining exactly when it was implemented by the developer - perhaps they shouldn’t be a reviewer?
I don’t care if a reviewer uses a patched version of a game, as long as it’s made explicit which release the review is based on.
RepoMan
3880
Good for Brad for encouraging reviewers to review the 1.05 version. If that is what it takes to correct his impression of what “shipping quality” means in 2010, then excellent – hopefully future Stardock games (if any) will be higher quality upon initial release. I still won’t preorder them, though, as once burned = twice shy.
