Results 1 to 20 of 24
Thread: Wot I "Thought" A Good Idea?
23-10-2013, 11:18 AM #1
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
Wot I "Thought" A Good Idea?
Had an inkling of an idea, recently. Wondered if others in the community would be interested in seeing sites like RPS do something along these lines. Something being, namely, a sort of Wot I Thought. A "follow up" review, if you will.
I know many of us, myself included, often wait for sales to purchase games. It took Bioshock Infinite reaching $13.59 for me to buy it. The trouble is, I think I still regret the purchase. This goes doubly for the debacle that is Farcry 3 - the RSP game of the year, if I recall.
Its this very combination of circumstances that leads me to think that follow up reviews are a good idea. That a gaming website should go back, months after release of a game, and do a follow up review. This allows time for the rose-tinted Glasses of +9 Newness to lose their color some. It also allows reviews to time to spot flaws that in their eagerness they might have overlooked. Mostly, though, it allows players a less biased, less sales-pitch-like review of games that have been out a while, and that we might be considering at sale prices.
So...what does the community believe? Are later follow up reviews - a Wot I Thought, perhaps - a good idea? Could it help you maybe avoid some late purchases of games that were thought of as great in the first 20 hours, and reviewed that way, only to lose their luster after the initial review, without another word from gaming media?
23-10-2013, 11:24 AM #2
If I recall correctly Polygon does this. It's not a bad idea, but it might be too much work for the writers as it would require playing the games a second time. As for correcting things that are no longer valid, such as bugs that have been patched, I think going back and doing that should be standard policy. Just look at the Spelunky WIT: Most of the already petty complaints are not valid anymore and yet there it stands, for everyone to find.
23-10-2013, 11:24 AM #3
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
Yeah, 100% agree. When Googling games which came out a year or so ago it's often common to find release reviews which mention early bugs which should be patched and they also don't (couldn't) compare with similar more recent games.
It's also nice to see a retrospective which includes DLC, something which can change the game entirely...
Finally, some games have performance issues which are overcome by modern hardware...
23-10-2013, 11:33 AM #4
A very good idea.
I'd especially appreciate it what with all these 'Early Access' and Alpha games around nowadays. Often, there are first impressions based on alpha gameplay, and then not much said about the game further down the line, when it's being/been released.
23-10-2013, 12:22 PM #5
Hype or not, I think a game should be judged by the state it is on release (not early access). Game sites should encourage developers to do the best job they can and not release unfinished products. Giving second chances might achieve the opposite and it's not something we, as gamers, should want.
Also, by the time a game is on sale there enough opinions on the internet to help us with our game purchase decision. Asking about the game in your favorite forum is also a legitimate way to get more opinions.
23-10-2013, 12:24 PM #6- If the sound of Samuel Barber's "Adagio For Strings" makes you think of Kharak burning instead of the Vietnamese jungle, most of your youth happened during the 90s. -
23-10-2013, 12:28 PM #7
Nah, I'd rather the RPS crew spend their time reviewing new games than revisiting old ones.
They still occasionally get to revisit old ones when they write about them in Bargain Bins, Bundles, and when they pick their GOTYs anyway.
23-10-2013, 12:41 PM #8
I don't think that's necessary. At most they could compile a short list of games once in a while that are much better months after release (probably due to patching) or casually mention this now cheap game is actually pretty good for the price (which they do, as Hanke pointed out.) Commissioning a large new series of articles to revisit these games would just feel like filler.
23-10-2013, 01:08 PM #9
- Join Date
- Sep 2012
I like Polygon's idea of altering review scores as a game changes. The problem with one set review is that game development is no longer a one and done, support can dramatically change a game. A great example is minecraft, which I like less now than when I started (forever snowing + no food was great). Another would be Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2. PC gamer published glowing articles about them for review, but then was critical about the games in later articles (RPS is better at differentiating the opinions of their writers, but it still happens).
Personally, I would like a site that only reviewed games three or so months after they came out. I imagine that site would have a hard time getting traffic though.
23-10-2013, 01:15 PM #10
23-10-2013, 02:17 PM #11
23-10-2013, 02:21 PM #12
It might be interesting if a game changed substantially. But I'm not sure it applies to the 2 sited by the OP, Bioshock Infinite and Farcry 3 would still get the same review now as the DLC hasn't done much.
23-10-2013, 03:00 PM #13
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
I would like to see the writer note how much time they actually played the game and if they finished it. Diablo 3 suffered in the end game at launch and Mass Effect 3 had that ending. SimCity had no problems on pre-release servers nor the simulation problems were that noticable, thus getting high reviews. Polygon redacted due to online problems but alas Metacritic never changes review scores.
And that PC gamer writer who salivated over Dragon Age 2 is a hardcore Dragon Age fan. They really should have gotten someone else do the review.
But if you really want to know how a game has aged or is with DLC, start a thread. There are various threads usually on the 1st page here and people have the time vs what RPS writers have to write on old content.
23-10-2013, 03:26 PM #14
Or maybe they should do a feature roasting developers of games that were buggy, broken or badly designed - "Wot Where We Thinking?"- If the sound of Samuel Barber's "Adagio For Strings" makes you think of Kharak burning instead of the Vietnamese jungle, most of your youth happened during the 90s. -
23-10-2013, 04:36 PM #15
I'd love a site that is only reviews and updates on games that are more than a month old. No hype, no previews, no betas, no pre-order crap, no day-of-release over-ratings, no launch snafus or day-zero patch stuff.
RPS has quite a different agenda, but I appreciate the retrospectives they do on occasion.
Hardcore Gaming 101 is great, though they're typically years behind the curve.
23-10-2013, 06:01 PM #16
I think it is only appropriate when the reviewer's opinion changes significantly over time. For example, my opinion of Oblivion changed significantly over time (especially once Fallout 3 came out and I started to think about how Oblivion could have benefited from some of F3's features) while Fallout 3 suddenly seemed a lot less impressive once I got my hands on New Vegas.
Hmmm....Here's a non-Bethesda example so I don't seem to be picking on them: my opinion of Final Fantasy VII (separate from its far-reaching influence, mind) has changed dramatically as I've gotten older and experienced more JRPGs, including ones that predate the game.
It also depends on the <i>why.</i> My examples aren't actually great, because they mostly depend on comparisons with other games, and it's rare that a game isn't done better in some sense by another title released with the benefit of hindsight and new tools. A better example would be something like Bioshock, which I found to be 2/3 of a pretty great game and one which I feel less and less positive about as I think about it.
23-10-2013, 07:07 PM #17
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
I think retrospectives are fun, but only when the person writing them actually has some new thoughts to share. It seems to me this is more just about people who feel burned by a purchase expecting that surely once the new game smell has worn off, everyone will see it the same as they do and will feel compelled to write an article condemning their old flame and showing that you, oh trusty disappointed reader, were right all along.
23-10-2013, 08:07 PM #18
- Join Date
- Sep 2013
There's no reason why we couldn't do this.
A "what we thought" section on the forum.
23-10-2013, 08:48 PM #19
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
I paid $16 bucks for Infinite. I think if I had paid anything more I would have felt really ripped off."game sales for consoles destroys pc games completely why do u think they are so cheap on steam lol."
-Random console gamer
23-10-2013, 09:01 PM #20
- Join Date
- Oct 2013