"Should Bugs be Ignored When Reviewing Modern Game Releases? #CUPodcast"
Click to viewBefore I even watch this, I am going to say that the answer should be a resounding, "Fuck no, bugs shouldn't be ignored when reviewing modern game releases, especially if it's game-breaking bullshit. If game companies don't want bad reviews for their games, then game companies shouldn't release broken roach motels. Period."
Now, to actually watch the video...
...
...
Again, as usual, I mostly find myself agreeing with them. You can't ignore that shit. Also, I don't mind the idea that was brought up of a follow-up review, as long as said follow-up doesn't completely supersede the original review. It's fair to say that a game is better now, but it's also fair to leave the original review intact, just to call out and shine a spotlight on the ever shitty practices of the modern video game industry. Even if a game on release comes with a day 1 patch to fix most of the issues that may have been in the review copies that were sent out to reviewers, it was still the case that the game companies thought it was a good idea to send out broken copies to reviewers, so the reviewers should report as such.
That said, the idea put forward by Ian that some games will "pass you by" if you don't get them at or near launch because of online crap or whatever... that's utter bullshit, in my opinion. If a game is so time-sensitive as to be mostly irrelevant just a few months or a year later, then... well... bugs or not, that game really wasn't worthwhile to begin with, and it's no loss whatsoever to me if I "missed out" or whatever. Simple as that.
Fortunately for me, I don't have to worry about any of this shit anymore. Even the "might miss out on online games" issue doesn't bother me, because, aside from very rare, occasional, nigh nonexistent outliers, I have no interest in playing online games at all.
(EDIT) Oh, and what about the issue of games that get demonstrably worse after patches? I think maybe those should also receive update reviews, especially if the "worse" part was actually new, unwanted, disliked features and not merely bugs. (/EDIT)
(EDIT 2) And here is a comment under that video:
"As someone in the industry, we basically say this, if you want to review a game before release, you cannot complain about bugs, especially since you wanted a prerelease copy, and in most cases that means an unfinished product, But you can disclose them in your review. One of the reasons alot of publishers dont want reviews up before a games release is because they expect a reviewer to quickly go over the 0day release, to see if any of the complaints they had are gone or even in some cases, if new problems arise. Alot of gamers like to say games are getting more broken on release. In reality games are becoming more and more complex, and in recent years alot of publishers are demanding that developers dont share any new libraries of tech releases, meaning alot of the same mechanics have to be reprogrammed again and again."
In other words, the same old "Baaaawwww, modern games are different now, more complex now, so don't be so hard on us poor, widdle developers, it's the reviewers fault or it's the publishers fault, not our fault at all ever, waaaaaaah!" bullshit that you typically see these days. In many cases, yeah, sure, it's executive meddling that fucks over a game, through no (or little) fault of the developers... but in just as many cases, it's simply that the developers themselves were indeed shit and that's why the game is shit. (/EDIT 2)