Should review sites re-rate PC games after patches?

[Roufuss]

Basacially, when a developer fixes what's wrong with the game or adds more features, should a review site re-review the game, espicially sites tailored to PC games?

The Witcher was just announced to get a huge, huge content patch in May which will address all the technical concerns (cut down on loading big time) as well as redoing the inventory and script. Should reviewers who specficially bitched about the load times write a quick write up to say "After patch xxx these issues were taken care of and my new score would be this".

Basacially, if you read a review of Team Fortress 2 now, it's not accurate to the game you get now for the same price, and it will be even further removed once the alternate weapon loadouts start rolling out.

Some developers go through the trouble of fixing problems post release based on reviews and such, so should consumers be aware of that? Or do you think review sites should just review based on out of the box functionality even when numerous problems have been fixed and things added?

I also just hate having to read a review on the game, then tracking down patch notes just to see if what reviewers bitched about a few months ago wasn't patched up within the game. Hell, even an addendum at the bottom would be nice, that the issues were fixed post release.

What do you think? And yea, I'm talking about patches that fix the game as well as free content to an existing game that doesn't raise the price of the game.

 

[Frosteh]

NO

They should write the game correctly first time, bad reviews encourage developers to release games that will get good reviews first time, I'm sick of paying to beta test games.

Possible exceptions, MMO's and anything with planned continual development, I don't really count an extra 2 maps from something like TF2 to cover this.

 

[silenteye]

No, it will encourage compnaies to put out even buggier games because then they can fix it later.

I wanna play my game without problems right out of the box, not six months later.

 

[FreiDOg]

There are a lot of cases where it makes sense to revisit a game later one - particularly online and MMO type games where the community and ongoing support / content make such an impact on the worth of the title.
You'd be hard pressed to find an RTS or RPG online that didn't undergo balancing after release. If you come back and say: 'yea the balance is fixed, there are tons of user created maps and a thriving community with viable servers available all hours of the night' 3 or 6 or 12 months on from the release, it's far move valuable to people who don't pick it up on launch day than pre-release reviews would.

 

[Roufuss]

NO

They should write the game correctly first time, bad reviews encourage developers to release games that will get good reviews first time, I'm sick of paying to beta test games.

Possible exceptions, MMO's and anything with planned continual development, I don't really count an extra 2 maps from something like TF2 to cover this.

After the alternate weapon loadout in TF 2, and the way that getting achievements is going to unlock said weapons, that is going to change Team Fortress 2 in a big way, once it hits for every class. I'm not talking about just the two extra maps (though the complaint it *only* ships with six maps is wrong now), but rather when the weapon loadout happens and the entire game structure changes.

Anyone reading a review on Team Fortress 2, who then buys the future version of the game, is getting a VERY different product then the reviews will mention.

I do agree developers should get it right the first time, but really, the chances of that ever happening are slim to none. The Witcher is supposedly an awesome game, just with long load times, now that the load times will be gone, shouldn't a review now mention this for future buyers? Maybe just an addendum at the bottom? Seems silly to keep a review up for the game that, with a simple patch, gets rid of the problems a reviewer had.

Even games that get awesome reviews still get patches and reviewers STILL find fault in them, so it's not just shitty games that need patches. I'd say Witcher got some damn amazing reviews and now they are going back to make the experience even greater. No game is ever without problems and I think the developers that do go back to fix criticisms that gamers find should at least be made known, because on the flip side you have people like Epic who dumped out Gears of War and never bothered to patch it once they got your money.

I don't really look at patches as band-aids, but rather developers take the time after release to make sure their game remains awesome, whether it's bug fixes, better optimiztion, or hell, just balancing the game because tens of thousands of users are bound to find problems a few testers don't. You can play Witcher right out of the box right now and have a great time, but the developer is taking the time, and for free, to basacially entire sections of the game. FreiDog gets what I'm talking about, games that undergo significant changes, imo, should have these changes noted, because every damn PC game review I read now I have to double check to make sure the review isn't outdated and no longer relevant, and surprise, 95% of them are.

If someone in May reads a review about The Witcher and decides not to buy it based on the load times, when the load times (according to the developers) will be cut down by 80% by May, that just seems kind of stupid and a review really isn't doing it's job since it's not accurately reviewing a product anymore.

Patches are a fact of life, very rarely do they make shitty games into awesome ones, but good games into great ones.

 

[wtburnette]

I personally think they should post an update when a patch is released that makes a major impact. That way whenever you read it you have the latest state of the game, as well as what the state was when it was originally reviewed.

DOH! I'm slow, I posted this after Roufuss, who has a much better explanation.