racketboy.com

BoneSnapDeez wrote:One thing I notice about the modern "patch" era is how is affects reviews and criticism.

Atari Mania is a great recent example of this. Launched with shitty controls, and was met with a deluge of negative reviews based on pre-release and launch copies (plus fan reviews on Steam by those who review games within the launch week!). It's since been patched and runs fine now but the damage is done. It sits at a 6/10 "mixed" rating on Steam, 66 on Metacritic, and searching for reviews online will mostly yield critical ones.

You know, I have noticed that too and it actually really annoys me. It is really hard to find updated reviews of games that have had significant updates. There's a Youtube channel (think it's SwitchUp) that does an "all patched up" series of videos, but other than that, there aren't many gaming outlets or critics who seem to properly revisit games after decent alterations and improvements.

Raging Justice wrote:Also, most games today are not much more complex then what we were playing in the PS2 era.

Tell me you know nothing about making a game without telling me you know nothing about making a game.

I took a gamble on Outer Worlds on Switch despite early reviews making it sound pretty terrible. But later updates made a big difference on visuals and performance. It was hard to find that information that convinced me to finally bite, though. So I agree, we really need post-patch review updates, because some games are just not fit for consumption at release. Then again, in the NES days those unfit-for-consumption games simply stayed that way.

Yeah, The Outer Worlds played quite nicely after the significant update the game received.

It seems nuts to me that if you want to look up reviews or opinions of games, that in most cases, the information you find (the consensus) on the game is based on outdated information.

Those reviews on the initial launch version of Outer Worlds are now all outdated and irrelevant, but if you are trying to find out what the game on Switch is like and if it's worth your time, they are all you will find.

Reprise wrote:It seems nuts to me that if you want to look up reviews or opinions of games, that in most cases, the information you find (the consensus) on the game is based on outdated information.

It seems nuts to me that publishers will push a broken game out the door to meet a release date and absorb all of the complaints and negative press and lingering reputational damage the game will receive as a result even if they fix it later.

That said, I have never bothered to learn much about game marketing, so they might have really good reasons that I just don't know about.

But if I am looking at a game two years later, it's irrelevant to me. Games aren't static entities anymore.

I also think games constantly being referred to as "broken" at launch and other similar things is generally overused and misused. The gaming media loves it tabloid-esque clickbait and so loves to act like a lot of releases with issues at launch are complete disasters, when it isn't always the case. People also act like Cyberpunk and other similar controversial releases are the norm and not the exception, when it's not really the case. I can probably count the number of modern games I have bought in the last decade that have actually been dreadful and perhaps even broken on day 1 on just one hand.

Obviously there have been cases of publishers forcing out clearly unfinished games that the devs have gone on record to admit as much themselves, but there aren't that many of them and I wasn't really talking about those as such. I was talking more generally, because as I said, unfortunately or fortunately, games aren't static entities anymore. Both in a bad way and a good way. Plenty of games that got good reviews at launch still receive tons of updates, both in the forms of refinements and improvements, but also sometimes new content, whether free or as DLC.

I don't think The Outer Worlds, which is the game we were discussing, was actually broken or that bad at launch tbh. I bought it at launch and had played through it before that massive patch was released. It was fine. Rough around the edges, yeah, and far from great, but playable enough. I wasn't particularly shocked given that it was a Switch port that already struggled to play amazingly well on a base PS4 and Xbox One.

Just chiming in to say I agree wholeheartedly on reviews. We really do need more post-patch reviews or review updates after patches. That’s one of the reasons I like our “games beaten” thread. I get to read new reviews of games from people I trust long after a game’s release date!

A follow up to Pokémon Legends Arceus series just got announced. I am not really a big Pokemon fan, but I really enjoyed Arceus. Hopefully the new one is good. It is releasing in 2025.

MrPopo wrote:

Raging Justice wrote:Also, most games today are not much more complex then what we were playing in the PS2 era.

Tell me you know nothing about making a game without telling me you know nothing about making a game.

In his defense, I feel he's talking more about the player experience. I disagree with him, but I can understand why he wouldn't feel like there was a lot of change. So much of the complexity is "under the hood", so to speak, or not things folks notice.

Like ARMA 3's bee shadows.