Anonymous asked: Speaking of reviews, and considering the recent release of New Vegas and the relative pounding it's been getting here and there...
Do you think it's fair to review a game poorly because of its bugs? To me it seems a bit like giving a movie a bad review because the DVD they sent you was scratched. Especially since bugs can be fixed eventually and I doubt anybody is going to rewrite all of their reviews everytime a patch comes out.
I mean, it is hard to recommend a game that is broken, but is it right for games to be reviewed as a "product" in any way instead of strictly on its own merits in terms of design, interest, concept, etc?
I’d say bugs are more like seeing a boom mic drop into shot, or spotting a teamster crouched down behind a big plastic rock eating his lunch. Bugs make it difficult for you to immerse yourself in the experience and remind you that you’re playing a game. They diminish from the intended experience of the game and for that reason I think bugs should negative impact a game’s score.
As an example, Red Dead Redemption wouldn’t get anything higher than a 7 out of 10 from me simply because the weird physics glitches and human/animal hybrids pull me out of the game entirely. If a historian uncovers evidence that men could flap their arms and fly like birds, or that women were used as modes of transportation during the period in which the game is set, I may reevaluate my position. For now though, RDR is a horrifically buggy game. Fun, yes. But buggy.
Giving buggy games high scores tells developers that they can get away with this shit, that your game could be buggier than the mattress in a New York hotel, and it won’t matter in the end. I think that’s irresponsible. It’s a bad message to send.
-
pcgdigitalbuzz said:
Game bugs and a scratched DVD are two different things. One is a poor quality product the other is damage. I run a blog here on tumblr and have a similar post. pcgdigitalbuzz.tumblr.c… Nice blog!
-
gamejournos posted this
