Should game reviews still take bugs into account?

The review policy for games as always been "as-is" and "upon release". Many reviewers get a review code slightly before the game is released while other reviewers pick up the game on the first day and play through it as quickly as possible. This is to ensure that the review process is constant for all games, in past, present and future, and that editors won't have to continually go back and adjust their reviews. If a bug is present, especially one that concerns the gameplay experience (e.g. freezing, crashing), this can often dramatically lower the game's score.

However, with the booming development of digital distribution such as Steam and internet connectivity such as Xbox Live, patches and bugfixes are out faster than ever before. If you look at the update history of recent games on Steam, many are updated multiple times per week with bugfixes or adjustments. Some games that had bugs upon release have them fixed almost by the next day. Dawn of War II's save game bug and its crash bug when graphics were set too high were fixed in less than a week (along with several other issues).

In light of current technological capabilities for developers to quickly remedy problems on the fly, do you think game reviewers shoud still dock marks because of bugs on release? When someone reads a review a week after the game is released, and the bugs mentioned in the review are already fixed, do you think this properly reflects the game's true quality?

Of course they should take them in account. Not every company patches their games. But maybe they could link to the company's site lisitng of the released patches, if they have such a place, so people can see if they have been resolved since the review.

If a game gets completely trashed due to bugs but in a year has become amazing due to fixes, then maybe it deserves a revisit  to let people know in a re-reviewing.

Yes. It's a flaw in the shipped product and should be taken into consideration. Just as vehicle saftey is surveyed, you don't say "oh, well the car was recalled later and the problems were fixed, so I guess we shouldn't mention the extreme potential for the brakes to jam." You know? =P

yes yes it should.

A review should be based on the current state of the game when the reviewer plays through and gives their opinion and feeling on the game. If when a game is reviewed it is full of nothing but bugs then it should definately be mentioned in the review.

Look at GTAIV for the PC, Mercs 2, Age of Conan etc. All big title games which had masses of bugs in them and a lot of reviews seem to downplay the severity of the bugs but the fact they mentioned them was what needed to be done. If someone had left out just how buggy GTAIV on the PC was, how many people would have slammed the reviewer for not pointing that out?

"A review should be based on the current state of the game when the reviewer plays through and gives their opinion and feeling on the game. If when a game is reviewed it is full of nothing but bugs then it should definately be mentioned in the review.Look at GTAIV for the PC, Mercs 2, Age of Conan etc. All big title games which had masses of bugs in them and a lot of reviews seem to downplay the severity of the bugs but the fact they mentioned them was what needed to be done. If someone had left out just how buggy GTAIV on the PC was, how many people would have slammed the reviewer for not pointing that out?"

They should be reviewed as is and if the bug is fixed it should be noted in the text.

"They should be reviewed as is and if the bug is fixed it should be noted in the text."

"But I mean, should it affect the score? Should it change a 5 star game into a 4 or 3 star game? "

"Hamz said:

"A review should be based on the current state of the game when the reviewer plays through and gives their opinion and feeling on the game. If when a game is reviewed it is full of nothing but bugs then it should definately be mentioned in the review.Look at GTAIV for the PC, Mercs 2, Age of Conan etc. All big title games which had masses of bugs in them and a lot of reviews seem to downplay the severity of the bugs but the fact they mentioned them was what needed to be done. If someone had left out just how buggy GTAIV on the PC was, how many people would have slammed the reviewer for not pointing that out?"

But I mean, should it affect the score? Should it change a 5 star game into a 4 or 3 star game? "

Yes, it should be taken into account. If they could fix it with a patch, why couldn't they fix it during development? Or more importantly, why couldn't they spot these bugs while they were making the damn thing?

"But I mean, should it affect the score? Should it change a 5 star game into a 4 or 3 star game? "

I think they should always be included in reviews. Nothing is worse then reading a review from someone who makes it seem flawless only to find it unplayable.

I'm of the mind that reviews should be written about the things that stand out to you.  If the game is such a buggy piece of shit that these problem stand out, then definitely.

For the time being, they should probably continue to dock points for having bugs, since not everyone has their consoles on the internet, and no one wants to buy an unfinished product. But if consoles get to the point where they are always online, bugs will probably become a moot point.

"For the time being, they should probably continue to dock points for having bugs, since not everyone has their consoles on the internet, and no one wants to buy an unfinished product. But if consoles get to the point where they are always online, bugs will probably become a moot point."

Yes. Reviews should take everything into account. Performance, stability, soundtrack, characters, atmosphere, sound mixing, story, immersion, controls, graphics, AND bugs.
Of course, the severity of the bugs should be noted. A perfect example of this would be Mass Effect for PC. Great game, but it has more bugs and crashes more often than any other game I've ever played. When crashes force you to hit "autosave" every 10 minutes, something is wrong.
The bugs/glitches/crashing of this game has effected my enjoyment of it greatly. If I wrote a review it would affect the score.

Before and after reading your post, my answer remains the same: absolutely. Reviewing with the possibility of upcoming fixes in mind will almost always affect the score positively, since as far as the reviewer knows, a patch (fuck that "title update" shit) could be released that makes that game the best game they have ever played.

No, reviews should remain in the "as-is" category. Anything else would be poor journalism.

 Definitely, if the bugs affect the game it should affect the score. (Grammar question: Should I have used effect of affect?)

Affect sounds right. But English is my 2nd language.

Affect is right.

"Affect sounds right. But English is my 2nd language."

Yeah... Why...?

"Yeah?"

I'm Greek.

"I'm Greek."

Comic books and video games taught me :P

Now you know why I edit posts so much :P

The aim of reviews is to advise people on what games to buy. In a perfect world, reviewers should update their reviews based on the current version, but that takes time and they are often busy with other things.

Ignoring bugs would be irresponsible, because there is no guarantee they'll be fixed.

Well the reviewer has no idea if the developers are actually going to fix the bugs, they just have to go on what the game currently is. The fact that is has massive gameplay bugs is solely the fault of the developers, and if the game receives a "bad review" then so be it. If they do actually fix these problems, then the reviewer has the option of rewriting the review, but the way I see it, all of that stuff should be fixed upon release. Also, if the game can be played offline, then there will be some people without the access to patches who don't have internet.

I think that if a reviewer were to just ignore bugs based on the assumption that they'll be patched, that more bug-ridden games might come about as a result.

To use an obvious and recent example, look at Gears of War 2. How many reviewers mentioned the debilitating bugs in the game's online mode? It wasn't until players got online and experienced the game for themselves that they realized all of the problems -- I didn't read one review that mentioned the slow match times or multitude of glitches. It took Epic 5 months and 3 patches to finally get it right, but although they lost a lot of players as a result of the game's initial flaws, sales were hardly affected, if at all. Will Epic make sure that Gears 3 is as bug-free as possible? Maybe, maybe not... considering the relative free pass they've been given with Gears 2, they may just be content to crank out another glitch-filled game and then patch it up after the fact, which isn't a good trend for the industry to start following.

I've been an advocate for a two-rating system since the launch of the modern consoles.  While I think bugs in games should be worked out to the best of the developers' abilities, there should be a certain understanding that games will need patches.  With that in mind, I suggest an extensive first review, including known bugs, with a secondary mini-review a half-year after the game's release, taking into account bug fixes, updates, and any additional support.  It's time-consuming, yes, but then again, so are soda-chugging contests.  Just sayin'.

"inkeiren said:

"Yes. Reviews should take everything into account."

No."

If it has an impact on the game experience then I think they should. I don't want to spend my money on something that isn't going to run properly.

yes if its a big one no if its something only you and no one else has ever expiration before

Yes it should and this is why the new Socom dug itself into a shit hole, it was released in a horrible state, yet if taken a little longer, it could have been a good game.

"I think that if a reviewer were to just ignore bugs based on the assumption that they'll be patched, that more bug-ridden games might come about as a result. To use an obvious and recent example, look at Gears of War 2. How many reviewers mentioned the debilitating bugs in the game's online mode? It wasn't until players got online and experienced the game for themselves that they realized all of the problems -- I didn't read one review that mentioned the slow match times or multitude of glitches. It took Epic 5 months and 3 patches to finally get it right, but although they lost a lot of players as a result of the game's initial flaws, sales were hardly affected, if at all. Will Epic make sure that Gears 3 is as bug-free as possible? Maybe, maybe not... considering the relative free pass they've been given with Gears 2, they may just be content to crank out another glitch-filled game and then patch it up after the fact, which isn't a good trend for the industry to start following."

Reviews shouldn't be so formulaic as you imply.
If they screw up the experience, yes, if they don't, no.

Remember gamespot's review system?  Personally, I was dumbfounded.  Isn't the only one that matters tilt?  You know, your gut feeling.