@hatking: I've been playing for a few hours and I can't recommend it enough so far. It is peak R&C. It's beautiful, has genuinely funny writing, and awesome gameplay. Having played the original hasn't taken anything away from the experience for me.
I love this feature, and I don't want to be one of those backseat people, but Vinny keeps burning retrograde at his periapsis to degrade his orbit and burning prograde at his apoapsis to extend it and it's tearing me apart. That's the least efficient way to do both of those things!
Am I just missing something, or is this justified?
@amyggen: But my point is that when you're splitting the scores, you're going beyond just having a review and score that's outdated eventually, you're having two different review scores for the same content. It becomes incongruous, instead of just outdated.
For instance, after all of the updates to Driveclub, I'd say that GB's review is outdated, because as you said, it's meant to review what's there at launch. But this is like if there was a separate, different version of Driveclub at release that already had all the new stuff and got reviewed higher. When the "PS4 version" eventually caught up, the difference in scores would be a blatant contradiction.
@amyggen: I guess my problem is that this just highlights some pre-existing issues with review scores in general in this day and age. For instance, when (if) the console versions get patched and run at an "acceptable" level, do those versions get bumped up to 4 stars? If not, then you have two different scores for the same product, and that's a bit absurd.
@amyggen: @mcgook: Because if every game that was inferior on consoles got docked a full star, reviews would become incomprehensible messes. Plus, it just seems like a huge double standard when Skyrim, another Bethesda game that was inferior on consoles to an even greater degree than Fallout 4 is, rated the same on PC and consoles.
I mean, the gulf between the PC version of Fallout 4 and the console versions isn't even that huge, there are games that suffer way more than just an unstable 30 fps. Also, rating the PC version high for technical reasons presupposes a user's hardware as being capable of producing a superior result to the consoles, which may not be true.
So, yeah, this seems like a bad idea for a bunch of reasons, and I'm disappointed at the decision.
Berserker976's comments