Modern Game Reviews or: How I Don't Trust Those Lying Sacks of [Redacted] Anymore.

This is a really odd back and forth.

I'm not quite sure what yall are even saying at this point. ha. So is it good for people to be pre-ordering games that they know less and less about? Is it okay for companies to sell somewhat busted products and then fix them later? Aren't both kind of bad, self-perpetuating errors, as blindly buying what's broken continues to encourage companies to not take the extra time to make finished games?

It seems like with just about any system of creator and consumer, there's a snowball effect of poor judgment feeding on poor judgment.

@truthtellah:

I'm saying it's unfair to criticize consumers for pre-ordering broken games when they can only know that a game's broken after it's impossible to pre-order (IE after it's been released).

Yeah. I mean, I preorder games that I'm interested in, and I try to be as informed about my decision as I can without falling for hype. On the other hand, I understand that there's an inherent risk of my decision backfiring. But I learn from these lessons. After getting burned by the Black & White hype years ago, I never take anything Peter Molyneux says at face value, even when he supposedly tries to calm his hyperbole and rhetoric. And given recent history, I have absolutely no intention of paying for preorders on any game that EA publishes. Though I'm a fan of the SimCity series, I didn't buy the latest one; partially because I had other games to play and partially because my computer isn't built for gaming. Either way, I'm glad that I wasn't in a situation where I might have been more tempted, because I would have hated to be among the throng that got burned by hype and pre-release coverage that said nothing about what the game truly was.

Find some guys you like a follow them. This is why giantbomb is a thing. This isn't new or inventive, like the people not the company.

And I agree. Consumers should be allowed to expect a certain level of competency in the product they buy, no matter whether they pre-order or not. Buying a broken game is never really a consumer's fault. You may blame them for not being smart shoppers, but it is the company's responsibility to ensure their product works as advertised.

I think it's fair to express concern about and warn against pre-ordering games where a big part of the game can't be tested until it is actually released. aka. Games with a large online or multiplayer component. Or games simply by companies which have shown a rocky history.

Ultimately, the main criticism should be on companies releasing the broken games. Obviously. But there is still reason to express concern about the actions of consumers which may inadvertently reinforce the negative actions of developers. It's an area for criticism similar to how consumers spending so much money on free to play games is leading to more free to play aspects in games, or how, in this case, consumers pre-ordering games long before they have any idea of what it will really be like, leading to publishers prioritizing marketing over finishing.

When developers are given reason time and time again to believe that it's fine to release broken games, their publishers will likely not stress that releasing a fully working game is necessary; instead, if there are issues, they'll just invest more in marketing to get more pre-orders. Because with enough hype, people will pre-order games anyway.

It's somewhat like an abusive relationship. Obviously, the one to blame is the abuser, or in this case, the company being abusive through clear and repeated negligence. But there are also enablers which maintain and feed that relationship. As long as they keep coming back to the abuser, they will feel they can act with more and more impunity. Companies feeling like they can just solve problems with a game through more investment in promotion than spending more time to get a game right is fed every time people pre-order the kinds of games which time and time again come out rough or even broken on release.

More and more, games are being released that just aren't finished, and that isn't okay. But a culture of pre-orders is making this still work for publishers. They aren't being held enough accountable for these failures. People should know by now that after so many of these kinds of games have come out busted, the next ones will likely be busted. And until that's proven otherwise, people need to be more cautious.

Gamers aren't to blame for publishers pushing out unfinished work, but people need to protect themselves better against these problems and avoid potentially enabling a terrible cycle that makes publishers money while gamers lose out more and more.

Company's should be held to some standard of competency, and one of the biggest groups which can actually hold them accountable are consumers. We as individuals in the gaming community should encourage one another to not put up with it and not reinforce pre-orders while companies continue to betray our trust and release incomplete games. Help one another show greater discretion in pre-orders if we're going to make them. Do more to protect ourselves until a point when we can actually believe in the quality of games like this at launch.

Right now, I think there is ample reason to have little faith in many games at launch, and it's good for people to caution against pre-ordering what may be rocky and incomplete titles. As you said, gamers should be able to expect a certain level of competency in the products they buy, but since many studios have shown that gamers can't expect that from them, we should hold them accountable and do more to protect ourselves from wasting our money on incomplete games.

So, for the record here, I think reviewers who were playing Dark Souls 2 in a pre-release environment had access to servers and the online experience. That said, the number of players playing at a given time when working on that review would be significantly lower than after the game was released, so I still think it's an iffy scenario. I don't really know enough about the game to know how big of a deal the player count is. I do know that Brad and Vinny both had access to that build of the game and decided to hold off on touching it until we had real, retail copies in-hand.

Agree

I don't even agree with Titanfall or Dark Souls 2 getting a "9" on Gamespot. A 9/10 or 90/100 suggests that almost anyone would like the game, as is with Disney/Pixar movies getting 90/100 reviews, but Titanfall and Dark Souls 2 are not meant for anyone to purchase. They are meant for specific audiences, namely hardcore gamers or fans of multiplayer skillbased FPS shooters (ie not Team Fortress 2).

I think that reviewing sites don't accuracy reflect great games that are meant for a niche audience. Games like GTA 5 probably deserve that 9 because they have so much to them that almost anyone not offended by the maturaity of the game will enjoy them. But I can see people buying DS2 and Titanfall and realizing that they just aren't for them.

I agree with the analysis, day one reviews are flawed in many cases, and reviewers are feeding the beast of gamers hungry for information. There's one thing that's not being questioned here which is "why the fuck are consumer/gamers so impatient". Get a slice of opinions, some mainstream reviews, some Youtuber analyses, some reddit/gaf threads from the pre-order crowd, and get an informed set of opinions before pulling the trigger. Do you really need it on Tuesday? Can't you wait the weekend at least. Those pre-order bonus are not worth it, and I'm not sure the 10% discounts are either if you end up with the occasional stinker you'd rather not have bought; that'll balance out those early adopter discounts in spade. The mainstream reviews have a place, amongst others, primarily as a well-crafted, concise piece of analysis. Choose your sources and learn patience.

But at the same time, people are still consistently pre-ordering games despite the current rash of supposed "triple A" titles that are completely busted on release. Why should the game developers/publishers work any harder to make their games functional on release if people are just going to buy the games regardless?

Right now, they're skimping on the server side of things on release since it's much cheaper for them to just wait for traffic to go down to manageable levels than it is to shell out enough cash to get the servers able to handle the kind of traffic the game gets initially. I would bet that Battlefield 4 isn't stable now because they fixed it, it's stable now because the servers aren't being hammered with release-level traffic.

I will never get the craze over the rage at pre-orders. If you want it, you want it, I'm not gonna tell an adult what to dowith their money.

If the game sucks then well... THAT game sucked, I got burned on Pre-ordering Thief,but I made out pretty good on South Park and Dark Souls II, so it's pretty much a crap shoot.

While I agree with you, reviewers are put in a weird spot where they have to put a score on a game that may not have come out yet.

@l4wd0g: I usually skim a few reviews but what normally sells me on a game is a quicklook , 30 min worth of comments from any of the giantbomb crew is usually all I need

As I learned from my journalism course your editor/boss will ask you "Why we no got?"

Writers are put in a position where they're expected to have something when everyone else does, and when you show up and don't have what everyone else has it always comes down to "Why we no got?"

Aside from the argument about reviews games before the public has them:

I follow a group of people in the games industry whom I respect and trust their opinion on stuff, I don't bother at looking at metacritic or the reviews on websites I don't go to anymore.

It isn't because I think these people are bad reviewers or anything, I just don't them as well as others.

Take Jeff for example, I've listened and followed his reviews for years and years so I know what he likes and what he means when reviewing something. So when there's a situation where my thoughts on a game clash with his, I understand. Because either he's explaining his position well or his personal tastes don't align with mine.

I just think it's crazy to assume they're liars or being bribed.

That to me seems like exactly how reviews need to be handled these days. Online games are starting to be crushed by their own popularity consistently and a lot of outlets don't seem to think that's an important factor of the actual experience. Thanks for thinking this stuff through.

While I can understand the frustration of things like Sim City and BF4, I think your beef is a bit misdirected if you're blaming the people that review the games. The people in the gaming press aren't actively trying to mislead you or lie to you (or at least the overwhelming majority aren't...I'm not dismissing the notion that there aren't possibly a few bad eggs). They're just trying to do their job and share their own opinion. Yes, it's an opinion that's typically based on a pre-launch experience, but that doesn't make it wholly invalid or a lie.

If you want to blame someone for a broken game, blame the developer and/or publisher. If you're concerned about potential issues and want to cover your own ass, you just need to not pre-order and wait for post-release feedback.

I don't mind, I don't need reviews to tell me Titanfall is another boring FPS that is virtually identical to Call of Duty with some extra gimmicks, and bad AI.

9.5/10!

Exactly. "From the makers of Call of Duty!" Guess what? They made another Call of Duty with robots and wall running.

11.6/10 BEST GAME EVERRRR

It does seem pretty irresponsible for a game reviewer to post a review of an unreleased game when it still could have potential problems.But if you're that worried about it, just don't buy a game until it's been out for a week.

So you're saying that pre-ordering is a good way of buying games because it doesn't 'burn' you most of the time? If you didn't pre-order any of those games and just bought the one's that still seemed purchase-worthy a day or two after release, you'd probably get burned zero times.

People seem to pre-order because of pre-order bonuses but pre-order bonuses exist because publishers want you to preorder. It's basically a self-perpetuating scheme that doesn't help anyone but the publishers who want to make you feel like you're missing out. Take the tiny hit of missing out on pre-order bonuses, which are usually very trivial anyway, and the problem of having to miss out on stuff automatically goes away for everyone in the long run. If a product isn't literally a limited edition or made from something that is actually scarce, there is absolutely no reason to give a company money without getting anything in return.

I don't read game reviews anymore, I cannot remember the last game I read a review for.

I don't know. It's advice not a command. When all is said and done the responsibility falls to the consumer to make the best buying decisions based on the information at hand. It isn't Polygon's fault if someone bought Sim City based on their initial review for example.

@l4wd0g FUCK, MAN, YOU GOT THE TITLE WRONG!!! IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN "LYING SACKS OF PUPPIES!!" PUPPIES, DAMMIT!!! PUPPY IS DUDER SPEAK FOR SHIT!!!

Honestly, though I don't lay the blame on the reviewer for being put in that iffy situation. Sure you can probably put out the reason being page views and what not for not holding off the reviewing until full release but its not the reviewers fault that the servers went to shit when SimCity or BF4 was launched for example. Ultimately, it all falls down on us whether we should make that purchasing decision on or prior to launch day or if we wait and hold off to see how it is or maybe wait even longer to get the game cheaper, etc.

Well to be fair though despite the reductive statements you guys mentioned and how some might find the game to be, I'm one of those people who are really having a lot of fun with it. I'm having a lot of fun with how the movement and the mechanics are pulled off in this game. It's like the feel of certain platformers or character action games makes me appreciate them and with this game I have a lot of fun with how very intuitive it is to pull off the stuff you can do and the tweaks made in terms of balance and how it affects the role that the AI plays, the max number of people and size of maps, etc.

I dunno if I agree with that. It's not all Polygon's fault but I think, since they're the ones providing the information people base their purchasing decisions on, they take some of the blame. If people are trying to make a good purchase, and they look at rave reviews that don't say anything about server issues, they're going to be under the assumption that the game runs properly because they were told that it did. I don't think it's the consumers fault that they believed what they read.

You aren't wrong, but you're overstating your case.

That's why I feel like it's kinda pointless if you're gonna buy it day one, then why not?

Most games I pre-order have no real bonus, I just use it as a checklist of what is coming out and do I have stuff to trade in to knock down the cost?

If you don't want to, then don't.

Also as an aside, "isn't literally a limited edition or made from something that is actually scarce", tell that to the people who couldn't find Bravely Default in a store for like 3 weeks because we live in a small town and most stores got like 3-4 extra copies onfthe game that weren't preordered. It does happen, depending on where you live.

Am I the only one who misses game and movie rental places for this very reason? I know that blockbuster and the like got more expensive as they faded away, but our only real option these days is either hope for a review to not lie or (for console gamers at least) pray that Gamefly will have more than ten copies of a big game to see if it's worth buying.

I agree with this topic, though I will say that any review, especially now, should be just a stepping stone to deciding if you want something or not. Every site is gonna try to sway you, unless what you're looking into is just outright bad to everyone of course.

Not trying to preach either: I bought Dead Space 3 after all so who am I to judge?

@l4wd0g: I don't put my trust in a singular website, nor do I put my trust in the aggregate number on metacritic. Even if the games press were completely honest, a single game critic can only represent how s/he felt playing the game, which isn't necessarily how I'm going to feel. I don't think aggregate scores mean much because game scores are so high - any big release tends to have an aggregate score of 80-100.

My method is to use metacritic (or gamerankings) to look at the reviews for a particular game; then read the high score and low score reviews from well-known websites. This way I get to read a review by someone who disliked the game and someone who loved the game. If the negatives expressed in the former review outweigh the positives in the latter, then I don't buy the game. If the positives in the latter review outweigh the negatives in the former, then I do buy the game. This works for me.