IGN: The RE-Review Policy

Gamer Bhoy 89

http://ie.ign.com/articles/2014/02/13/igns-re-review-policy

I found this a very interesting article. I think it was a matter of time for this to happen considering the day and age gaming has came to with constant patches and updates.

For those that are IGN viewers, what do you think of this?

RogerWilco1982

Well it's a reflection of and reaction to the fact that a game (or hardware) can change over time, and their policy certainly strikes me as being the way forward.

One would wonder what criteria need to be met for them to look at a release again for a new review...

dreamers75

Game developers get paid bonuses on meta critic scores, gamerankings being the main one.

IGN have a big say in how the meta score is calculated altho gamerankings have a "sekrit formula" on how games are scored, IGN are a biggie factor on it.

Am i cynical enough to think this is a method to change scores....

Gamer Bhoy 89

RogerWilco1982 wrote: »

Well it's a reflection of and reaction to the fact that a game (or hardware) can change over time, and their policy certainly strikes me as being the way forward.

One would wonder what criteria need to be met for them to look at a release again for a new review...

*Looks at SimCity*

COYVB

RogerWilco1982 wrote: »

One would wonder what criteria need to be met for them to look at a release again for a new review...

a major patch

good idea tbh

shruikan2553

Im all for it. As they said it is possible for a game to change a lot over time but they should say what the changes are and not just starting fresh with a review.

SterlingArcher

ign and reviews look behind the curtains. they are now instead of dissing a new game that released broke hitting its profits. Now they are Giving game developers a pass for this new trend of rushing out broken games to meet an annual release. Ah sure we will write a new review when you patch it up so no worries mate.

F,uck that noise. Release a game broke and get what you deserve ,a **** review and see their profit margin slide.... Learn a lesson. It's the only way we will get back value for money is hurting sales.

It's happening too much now.its being allowed be the norm. Look at watchdogs. Games not good enough you hold it off . Simple as.

COYVB

But they'll still give a crap broken release a crap broken score on release. It'll only get a better score if it's fixed later on

super_furry

It's interesting because media outlets like IGN often review games in isolation and those gaming conditions can sometimes bear no relation to the real world experience. Take Battlefield 4, those who played the review copy did so in ideal conditions, connecting to other journalists with only a handful of people in the world actually playing at that time. The IGN review in particular - http://ie.ign.com/articles/2013/10/29/battlefield-4-pc-review - made no mention of bugs, crashes or glitches. You have to believe that's because they didn't experience them. When the game was released however, it became apparent just how broken it was and in those circumstances a re-review is warranted.

lmimmfn

stopped reading IGN paid for *ahem* reviews a long long time ago.

COYVB

Reviews aren't bought

Temptamperu

I dont think its right, games should be "finished" at release and this is only egging developers on to release half made crap.

Varik

Temptamperu wrote: »

I dont think its right, games should be "finished" at release and this is only egging developers on to release half made crap.

They should be but I'd say this'll affect more games whose problems are missed or not present in the review copies rather than half made games that are improved.

COYVB

Temptamperu wrote: »

I dont think its right, games should be "finished" at release and this is only egging developers on to release half made crap.

Why? The broken game will still get a crappy review

nesf

Temptamperu wrote: »

I dont think its right, games should be "finished" at release and this is only egging developers on to release half made crap.

It's not just "unfinished" games though. Diablo III for instance was very polished when it was released but was just patched (a rather long while later) into something much more similar to Diablo II much to the praise of long time fans who disagreed with many of the design decisions of the first iteration of Diablo III.

This isn't developers releasing half made crap, it's developers revisiting design decisions. This is worthy of a rereview because many of the criticisms of the original game are no longer relevant and Diablo III is far from the only example of this, many games, especially strategy games, get heavily altered through patches and expansions and after a year or two the original review is going to be very misleading.



The problem here is dishonest or rushed reviews based on limited betas that cast far too fair a light on games with very serious problems.

Kirby

COYVB wrote: »

Reviews aren't bought

Are you for real? Listen, I know you review games so if you want to make a statement like "My reviews aren't bought", that's fine.

But a blanket statement like "reviews aren't bought" is naïve in the extreme.

nesf

Kirby wrote: »

Are you for real? Listen, I know you review games so if you want to make a statement like "My reviews aren't bought", that's fine.

But a blanket statement like "reviews aren't bought" is naïve in the extreme.

He could be disingenuously arguing that they're not directly paid for, or made to order.

COYVB

Kirby wrote: »

Are you for real? Listen, I know you review games so if you want to make a statement like "My reviews aren't bought", that's fine.

But a blanket statement like "reviews aren't bought" is naïve in the extreme.

I'm telling you, reviews are not bought. It doesn't happen. No publisher offers a reviewer a bag of cash or anything like it for a positive review

Temptamperu

COYVB wrote: »

I'm telling you, reviews are not bought. It doesn't happen. No publisher offers a reviewer a bag of cash or anything like it for a positive review

Just big boxes of "preview" material

COYVB

COYVB wrote: »

I'm telling you, reviews are not bought. It doesn't happen. No publisher offers a reviewer a bag of cash or anything like it for a positive review

It happens all the time. It may not be bags of cash but it invokes advertising revenue, trips abroad, etc. think back to the whole game spot Kane and Lynch debacle where they sacked a review after pressure from the publisher.

super_furry

Deleted User wrote: »

think back to the whole game spot Kane and Lynch debacle where they sacked a review after pressure from the publisher.

That exact scenario suggests that these thing's don't happen. The reviewer in that situations Jeff Gerstmann was willing to risk his jobs rather than compromise himself and his review. In support of him, several other writers walked out. Indeed Gerstmann is now back working with the same company who now give him and Giant Bomb absolute free reign.

The vast majority of reputable websites have ethics policies in line with say Polygon's - http://www.polygon.com/pages/ethics-statement

super_furry

super_furry wrote: »

That exact scenario suggests that these thing's don't happen. The reviewer in that situations Jeff Gerstmann was willing to risk his jobs rather than compromise himsef and his review. Indeed Gerstmann now back working with the same company. Giant Bomb are back in the Gamespot offices having been bought by CNET.

The vast majority of reputable websites have ethics policies in line with say Polygon's - http://www.polygon.com/pages/ethics-statement

Yes but how many other reviewers just went with it and edited their reviews to appease publishers. I know of one publisher who refused to send out review code to a publication because the publication had given poor reviews to the publishers past titles.

Kirby

COYVB wrote: »

I'm telling you, reviews are not bought. It doesn't happen.

super_furry

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes but how many other reviewers just went with it and edited their reviews to appease publishers.

Very few if any judging by the Kane and Lynch Metacritic page. Sure there are couple of postive reviews from what looks to be some dodgy independent sites but the big players and the trustworthy sites are happy to mark it down.

Deleted User wrote: »

I know of one publisher who refused to send out review code to a publication because the publication had given poor reviews to the publishers past titles

Again I'd take that as a positive sign that publishers aren't getting their way and aren't able to influence review scores. It's always telling that when a big release game isn't expected to review well that publishers don't send games out in time to have reviews hit before the launch, it's because they know they can't shape the tone of those reviews.

COYVB

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes but how many other reviewers just went with it and edited their reviews to appease publishers. I know of one publisher who refused to send out review code to a publication because the publication had given poor reviews to the publishers past titles.

None

If anyone's reviews have been edited, it certainly wouldn't be by the review writers.

There's not a publisher in the world who's dumb enough to threaten an outlet like that anyway - a story outlining the ins and outs of all the correspondence with them would be worth 50 times in clicks the value of any advertising campaign from the publisher.

If anything, I'd wager most sites are sitting around waiting for it to happen. Christ... the amount of traffic you'd get lifting the lid on something like that would be insane. You're talking 7-8 figures a day over a sustained period - from a SINGLE story

COYVB

Temptamperu wrote: »

Just big boxes of "preview" material

Its in the publishers best interests to send that stuff anyway. Pre release coverage is never negative. Ever.

Well, almost never. But a game has to be a serious serious mess to get bad preview coverage

Temptamperu

COYVB wrote: »

Its in the publishers best interests to send that stuff anyway. Pre release coverage is never negative. Ever.

Well, almost never. But a game has to be a serious serious mess to get bad preview coverage

Thats true but why do all the "triple a" scored o high even when they are sub-standard or the same as last years offering while the smaller comapnies that try to be different get scored so low?

Theres definitely shenanigans.

COYVB

Temptamperu wrote: »

Thats true but why do all the "triple a" scored o high even when they are sub-standard or the same as last years offering while the smaller comapnies that try to be different get scored so low?

Theres definitely shenanigans.

Honestly, it's because triple A budgets usually mean better games in terms of mechanics, engines, controls etc. Despite the fact that we all like to complain about big budget sequels (I'm very vocal about that stuff), the fact is that those games score high because they're usually really good games.

The big question is do you score a really really good well made game lower because it's essentially the same as the previous iteration? That's a tough one to call to be honest. You review games based on the game, not based on its lineage, and a FPS that's the 6th in the series that features little more than improved visuals and tightened mechanics is still, more than likely, a better game than its predecessor, no matter how small the improvement.

Games don't tend to go backwards in terms of overall package quality

Typically you don't get a JRPG lover reviewing a side scrolling shoot 'em up, or an RTS aficionado tackling the latest fighting game. Is that right? There's a case of both sides of the fence there, but you'll usually find the person reviewing a game is a genre fan, or a series specialist, which tends to skew review scores.

Take Call of Duty, which we're all sick and tired of at this stage. What was Ghosts? It was a mass market shooter made to be relatively accessible, focused on online play and there to make money from series fans. Was it any worse at what it did than its predecessors? No. Was it any better? That's a bit more difficult to pinpoint, given objectivity, but technically yes it was.

I would suggest anyone who thinks there's little progress year on year in any given franchise plays the most recent and one from 3 years ago on the same platform. Anything based on technology, which games are, improves quite a bit year on year. Are those improvements enough to warrant a €60 outlay every year? Probably not - but is it fair to slate a good game because it's similar to its predecessor? Or do you take the game as an isolated product released separately from the rest of the games in its series and review it based on that?

Back to the point at hand, smaller companies tend to get scored lower but praised for their ideas, because their ideas are good but they lack the budget to really stand up with the big boys (most of the time). That's not always the case, particularly when it comes to smaller developers who work to their limits, rather than trying things they simply don't have the resources to do properly, whether graphically, technically or in terms of gameplay mechanics.

This is why I say time and again: forget about the scores, read the words - they're the important bit of the review

johnny_ultimate

COYVB wrote:

Back to the point at hand, smaller companies tend to get scored lower but praised for their ideas, because their ideas are good but they lack the budget to really stand up with the big boys (most of the time).

This has never been less true - many of the truly great games coming out are made on a shoestring budget and yet shame games with ten or hundred times the budget, and countless have realised their ideas to the utmost potential. In fact, I'd go as far as suggesting smaller studios have a creative freedom that diminishes significantly as the zeros next to a budget increase.

Temptamperu

I dont rate things numerically I either like it and play and tell others to play or I say they are bad and warn others. The words are the most important you are dead right.

COYVB

COYVB wrote: »

None

If anyone's reviews have been edited, it certainly wouldn't be by the review writers.

There's not a publisher in the world who's dumb enough to threaten an outlet like that anyway - a story outlining the ins and outs of all the correspondence with them would be worth 50 times in clicks the value of any advertising campaign from the publisher.

If anything, I'd wager most sites are sitting around waiting for it to happen. Christ... the amount of traffic you'd get lifting the lid on something like that would be insane. You're talking 7-8 figures a day over a sustained period - from a SINGLE story

It would be the editor who may edit a review so it's more favourable. All of the big publications are the same, offering the game generic reviews with little to distinguish them. No major publication is going to risk losing out on as revenue by slating a big game. Sure there's the odd one here and there but the fact that each yearly CoD scores 9-10 in most places says a lot.

No publisher is going to state that scores must be so high, they will carefully imply it so that they cover their ass. I know one publisher who ate quite adept at it and from speaking to many who work in the trade they had stories about the publisher would go about getting reviews they wanted.

You can try and justify the high scores for CoD all you want but honestly there's no way in hell Ghosts should get anything beyond mediocre reviews. It's a tired and bland game that offers little new beyond a graphical sheen and a few gameplay tweaks.