should some games be re-reviewed?

I know some games get a low review when it comes out, then the game fixes problems with patches and what not. I dont think Ive seen a game that has been reviewed after the fix. I maybe wrong. Is there anygames out that you thing should be reviewed or got an unfair review?should some games be re-reviewed?
no, they chose to ship that way so thats what they getshould some games be re-reviewed?
Yea I guess i half agree with you there. they should make sure the finish product is 100%, but on the other hand if they get user feed back on something that could be altered and they change it for the better or add something to make the overall game better, i think the score should reflect that.
Problem is that some times I'veu read ''but devs have dealt with this issue in their latest patch''. A bit unfair imo.
[QUOTE=''inyourface_12'']no, they chose to ship that way so thats what they get[/QUOTE]Agreed.
[QUOTE=''artur79'']Problem is that some times I'veu read ''but devs have dealt with this issue in their latest patch''. A bit unfair imo.[/QUOTE] where did you get that lil animation at, its awesome
I stand behind GameSpot with their policy to not re-review games....... HOWEVER.....I don't understand why games such as Americas Army only have a single review out for it. The patches that have come out are bigger than most FPS expansions...For example why is there no review of America's Army: Special Forces Overmatch? It's got it's own gamespace, but no review? Hell it's not even using the same engine as the original review anymore. I doubt they're even going to review it once their next big patch which will update the engine to UE3...... Whats up with that?
SuperBeast: Because then reviewers would be re-reviewing old games for an eternity instead of reviewing/previewing new titles. There simply is not enough time to do both.James: just google ''computer_programmer.gif''. It's hilarious, I know...
[QUOTE=''thusaha''][QUOTE=''inyourface_12'']no, they chose to ship that way so thats what they get[/QUOTE]Agreed. [/QUOTE]
I think they should, but only under certain circumstance.I'll use Bloodlines in my example, because it's a pretty extreme case. The game shipped in a pretty much completely unplayable state. It was a great game - but you needed profound patience to live through the bugs and engine issues. I didn't actually play it back then, but I've heard horror stories about it.GameSpot - just as an example - gave it 7.7, making a point on the issues with the game. When I played it - played a full patched version (using the official patches) - I experienced no bugs, and minimum drop-to-desktop crashes. I think I played a 9.0 game, at least.So, right there, as far as accuracy is concerend, GameSpot was actually giving me incorrect information because it did not update its review, or re-review the game.I don't think every game warrants it - good games, for example, don't need updated reviews. But games with serious technical issues or games which receive significant changes through patches deserve to be re-reviewed. But I think the previous review should also be available and the two scores should stand concurrently, so people can clearly see what and why.As far as aging is concerned, and things like that, re-reviewing would be pointless. It would be hugely time consuming. But I do think some games deserve it. And it's not exactly unprecedented - GameSpot altered the Company of Heroes score from 8.9 to 9.0 after an nVidia driver update, the previous version of which was causing issues with the game. Granted, it was only a day or two later, but it did happen.
I agree. I also think reviews should be written by a group of people and notby one person. A lot of people listen to the review and sometimes this one person's opinion is not relevant to all of us or maybe he has the opinion of a minority. reviews effect our decisions(buy or not to buy)and therefore should include various opinions.
MMO's should. They evolve all the time. MMORPG.com does re-reviews.
[QUOTE=''RK-Mara'']MMO's should. They evolve all the time. MMORPG.com does re-reviews.[/QUOTE]I agree 100% I've been asking around to try and get EVE online re-reviewed as Gamespot hasen't reviewed it or ANY of it's expansions since 2003.
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
only when they conflict with my opinions. :P
The WitcherIts only the best RPG to come out in the 21st century and it got an 8.5I know, I know...thats a great score, but The Witcher truly deserves better.
[QUOTE=''SandwichPowder''] [QUOTE=''RK-Mara'']MMO's should. They evolve all the time. MMORPG.com does re-reviews.[/QUOTE]I agree 100% I've been asking around to try and get EVE online re-reviewed as Gamespot hasen't reviewed it or ANY of it's expansions since 2003.[/QUOTE]Ya, i second that. EVE is amazing. Fortunately (or unfortunately) I didnt play the initial release which I assume deserved the score it got, but now I would give it atleast an 8.0. I think Gamespot has a strict policy of not re-reviewing things tho.
i think it would better to add some extra info and another score based on the patched game, instead of re-reviewing for games which intially had lots of bug
Sort of.People with any brains at all shouldn't be judging a game strictly by reviews at all if the game has been out for a while. Oblivion for the PC, was inferior in many ways to the console version, even though on net they were about the same. Now though, the actual mods you can get for the game makes the console game inferior overall.On the other hand, I think a lot of people get excited about newer games anyway, so what an older game got as a review doesn't interest those kinds of people. I doubt the majority of modern games play a very small number of games for 5-6 years like I used to. (and probably still do in some ways) nor look back beyond 2007 for any game they might possibly want to play.