I'm not much of a front page guy, but this is a topic that I do feel rather passionately about right now. Dan Stapleton recently wrote this editorial on the subject of the quality of game releases and game developers' tendencies to heavily rely on day 1 patches just to make their games playable. In his title he argues that the reliance on DLC patches essentially makes these consoles "online only" - a frightening prospect that the market has repeatedly responded negatively to.
On the whole, I agree with Dan's point. Developers and publishers have gotten to a point where they are comfortable releasing a game that's basically infested with parasites and hoping that they can prepare some medicine to kill the bugs by the time you dig in. It's something that the consumers of the games industry should not tolerate. But something in Dan's article bothered me; an area that was simply overlooked and unaddressed.
Specifically, Dan wrote the following:
As an additional side effect of these patches, review copies now typically arrive much later than they used to; instead of sending them out as soon as a game goes gold, developers wait until the patches are ready. That’s drastically shortened the amount of time we have to play for review.
This is where my problem comes into play. Why are reviewers going along with it? I understand that there's nothing they can do about when they receive their review copies, but why are they downloading the patches to review the game? This is an issue where a game is being sold in a certain condition and is being altered later on. I recall a game named Backbreaker, which IGN rated somewhere in the 5 range when it came out. Later on the game received an update that fixed many of the major issues in the game and drastically altered the playing experience. I don't recall IGN going back to alter their review after that patch. So why should they grant the same courtesy just because the patch is close to release time?
In my humble opinion, game reviewers can help this issue and better inform their readers by reviewing games primarily from exactly what is on the disc itself - no patches. Make a side note about what the patches fix, but don't excuse them. If developers see that major review sites are basing their reviews off the "gold" content and not the patched content, they will react. One site may not be enough, but this is a relatively small community, and I believe that if one major site makes a point of it, others may follow.
So basically, put your money where your mouth is. Don't let them get away with that mentality by excusing glaring glitches that have quick patches; base them instead on what gets shipped to stores and nothing more. Acknowledge the fixes that are available, but do it as an afterthought.
We gamers can also help this issue by refusing to pre-order games and waiting a few days minimum before purchasing; the onus is not entirely on reviewers. I just wanted to point out a way for the editors to be active on this issue, since they obviously care enough about it to bring it up.
What do you think? Should reviewers base their reviews on pre-patch material only, or should reviewers go ahead an patch their game before they review it? What do you think about the overall issue? Sound off in the comments.
_______________________________________________________________
"I also dislike crabs, especially the ointment necessary in their treatment."
_______________________________________________________________
Today In Music (January 9th)
1984 by Van Halen released in January 9th, 1984. Also released on this day:
- Inhuman Rampage by DragonForce (2006)
- "Cumbersome" single by Seven Mary Three (1996)