When Do We Review Games? // Codex Entry
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 июл 2024
- If you don't like this video, then know it's still in Early Access, and therefore immune from criticism.
Patreon: / codexentry
Subscribe: bit.ly/2qwQw4Q
Twitter: / codexentry
Twitch: / codexentrytv
Facebook: / codexentry
Music Source:
LAKEY INSPIRED - Days Like These
• LAKEY INSPIRED - Days ...
Footage Sources:
Simcity footage:
• SimCity Gameplay Trailer
Rainbow Six: Siege ESL Match:
• Rainbow Six Pro League...
PUBG Glitches:
• Video
PUBG Gameplay:
• [PUBG] - PlayerUnknown... 
Игры
This is exactly why if someone tells me to base my opinion on what a score says my response is to instead find an up to date review of it on RUclips
Dude, you're the most underrated youtuber ever. You always amaze me with awesome and deep videos about topics i rarely thought about before, like this one. You deserve way more subscribers.
Man you just keep impressing me with your music selection. You have excellent taste!
Business can be a double edged sword, it can either ruin a product or fix a broken one.
You know Ryan, you raise a valid point. However, I can't find myself agreeing with the end goal. One thing you made clear was Metacritic only accepting initial reviews of a single product. This applies to all media they compile reviews for. When considering the likes of Bladerunner, you have to keep in mind that was eventually an entirely new release. As is with most director's cuts. The videogame equivalent would be an upgraded edition like SFVAE or FFXV:RE. Those receive additional reviews, they aren't disregarded. And in some occasions, depending of the popularity of the game (like Bloodborne or RE7) the DLC can also get a review.
To reconsider entirely when to review a game, would be to put people out of a job and to take power away from most of the general consumers. They don't go out of their way to research patch notes, DLC, and any other updates, they just see what is a good game to buy based on reviews and go for it. And in the case of less hardcore consumers, they decide on whether or not to cancel their pre orders or buy on release based on the reviews of said products.
I believe, the argument shouldn't be "When Games should be Reviewed" rather "How Games should be Reviewed". It is important to consider a game's life-cycle in the cases of a Splatoon or an Overwatch, but it is also important for reviewers to consider every aspect of the game and evaluate it in proper context. Something that major companies can't comply to due to the deadlines their reviewers are forced to meet or overall disinterest they have for their job. This detail is impossible to change, and when it comes to game reviews that will remain that way.
Mainstream reviewers mostly have certain basic criteria they look for games to meet, and they will wrongly review games as so without any consideration of it being the correct way to do things.
why are your videos so underrated!?
A fantastic point. Though a re-review is always a fantastic way to promote a grown game. It does not take away the fact that the current culture often has people buy a game at launch and stop playing it after they finish it. Even if other content comes out later. Though patches are a good thing when used properly I much prefer a game to be done on release. A game such as Persona 5. Which at time of release was complete. Head to toe. I didn't have to install a day one patch. Or one in the months after. The game was all done, on disc.
That said. I am still waiting for part 3 of that analysis ;)
Only 3K subs? Bro, you deserve a FUCK-ton of more subs than that. You make some of the best gaming videos on RUclips.
God, this is a tough one. Unfortunately, we're still in the baby age of video gaming. Metacritic ain't never going to give up that release score. Hopefully overtime, we can do (as you say) review game like Blade Runner.
Nice video, Ryan! Keep the great work, and have a nice day! ;D
meta critic is trash
if you are popular review you affect the Point increadibly if you are anonymous your review is worthless
Cool video dude!Keep it coming.I love the way you look at things.
"Ubisoft" 🤣🤣
I think that one of the main problems with games is that a 40 to 100 game is going to come out next week almost every week that need to have a review for consumers. That different from a reviewer watching a 2 to 3 hour directors cut. That's a lot to ask a review to go back to a game they already reviewed when they have another game on their plate. Then you have games like skyrim that have been out for years (and had multiple rereleases) and still have some of the same problems it had on launch.
Very nicely done again! This is indeed a pretty big issue, so I hope publications can learn from it. This is probably even harder on RUclips-based reviews.
Dude. you are so awesome. Please keep making videos.! We are cheering you on!
tfw i played literally all the games that was explained in this video
Good point
It's been a while. Welcome Back!
Really interesting take, love your content.
You brought up a very good point. There is probably a strong argument for FFXV not being the same game, one i happen to align with, I think that this is a drastic example (given how radically the game has changed), but it is the one that exemplifies the phenomenon the best. Hell, I would say that it is one of the fairest and most consumer friendly instances of a "game as a service", which, coming from a mostly single player game, is strange but also endearing and good. I think that when the Royal Edition comes out, we will not lack for articles about "revisiting" the game or "FFXV: One year later" (something like that), and I hope that this changes the way we look at videogames as individual pieces of constant change.
On another note, I don´t think your original video about the game is obsolete, seeing as you touched on things that are largely positive, can´t change too much and can probably only be improved by a better game (patches, add ons, good DLC, etc.). I think your video still stands because it comments on the strengths of the game beyond its more obvious aspects.
Honestly Yume Nikki is an incredible example of how games can change. At first it was a free game had updates that lasted up until version 0.10 and then after 15 years, it finally got a full commercial release!
Also Yume 2kki, a fangame which is arguably better than the original because of the literal hundreds of updates that sometimes dramatically change the game!
This also goes for different platforms being released (although this was a big concern in the PS2/GC/Xbox and PS3/360/Wii gen, rather than the current one)
Like, while the X360 version of Splinter Cell Double agent is good, the PS2/Xbox release of Double Agent (made by a totally different studio), is considered the logical successor to the legendary Chaos Theory.
Also, many release of Tom Clancy games were great on Xbox, while being poor on PC and PS2 (that is why their legacy has faded except for Chaos Theory, which has a great PC port).
Similarly, playing Resident Evil 4 on GC, Wii and any 60FPS capable platform are three separate experiences. Watch Lambhoot's video on RE4.
So, a reviewers/analyst has to be very thorough about what they talking about, when talkin about a game.
NEW subscriber CE!!!
I agree with everything you say, but the reviews for when a game comes out are super important! They are representative of what the state of the product was, which may or may not force the developers to put in the necessary work to deliver on the product they promised.
It’s also important for the sake of context. TLoZ:OoT is in my opinion the greatest video game of all time. It received a 10/10 score (well deserved). However, if reviewed today, that same version from 1998 would receive something akin to an 8 (being very generous since it looks like dog shit lololol). Meanwhile a masterpiece like DMC:5 will NOT be 10/10. Neither will any other game you find perfect, even though some may approach them.
When is persona 5 part 3 coming out
Responded to this on the other comment you posted about it. Tl;dr soon
A game like Warframe should be re-reviewed yearly, lol.
Same for most games "as a service": Destiny, Division, For Honor, Siege.
But FFXV is supposed to be an exception. Patches are usually to fix technichal stuff, the game should be complete when it's released, anything that does change the game, like an expansion, should be reviewed as something different.
For example, Dark souls vanilla gets a review, and the expansion Artorias of the Abyss should receive a, let's call it, "review expansion".
Most people say that FFXV was good at launch but was heavily flawed but now it's a great game. I only played it after everything came out including DLC and updates. I even played the DLC in the correct spaces during the story. After ALL THAT, I feel FFXV *now* is barely enjoyable and heavily flawed.
It’s getting ridiculous anymore though, like how many games this gen can you name that came out unfinished? I’m not talking about dlc that was developed after the game was finished, I’m talking about games that came out nearly barebones, that eventually gets good.
I’m just saying I’m beyond sick of having to wait for my game to be done after I’ve owned it for half a year. For example Halo the Master Chief Collection was a broken mess at launch, they’re only just now going to fix it nearly 4 years after its release, and I’m happy about that, but also infuriated that the game I was told I was getting did not work when I got it, Hell I I still run into game breaking bugs that weren’t in the original versions of the games in said collection.
Good video though, you make a very good case I’m just annoyed that you can no longer expect to get a finished product when it comes out anymore.
If your game isn't finished, don't release it. It's that simple. Games should be reviewed whenever a reviewer has finished the game regardless of release date.
Plus it's not the responcibility of a reviewer to hand companies criticism on a platter, reviews cater to the consumer. If you want to be critiqued personally then it's up to you to seek out the reviewers and ask them for critique.
Patches for bug fixes, great! Patches for more story part way through a 100+ hour game, not worth me replaying it imo, especially if that game is ff15. It was fun but a slog at some points as the combat was kinda boring imo. If I could just see the new cutscenes and stuff it would be better. I still haven't played the episodes that came out even though I got the season pass. Maybe I should go back and play more of it, idk. I just kinda feel with a long game they shouldn't be adding more content part way through the game as I don't have the time to play them again for 30 minutes of new content in a 100 hour game.
Your and other critics' initial reviews of FF15 are now "obsolete", sure, but it and other reviews of FF15 aren't "worthless", as you put it. People like you saved me from wasting 60 dollars on a product that was launched in an incomplete and deeply flawed state. I still have that 60 dollars in my pocket because I still don't think it's a game worth supporting, even after all the content they've added in.
So the answer to your headlining question for your video is simple. It's whenever the game comes out. It doesn't matter if a poorly-launched game in 2-3 years time becomes a masterpiece in game design.
PUBG may go on to become one of the most bug-free and smooth-running and deepest multiplayer games ever made later in 2019 or 2020 or 2035. But right now, in February 2018, PUBG is the complete opposite of all of that. Yet it is already asking us to pay actual money to play it. That alone is fair grounds for a review.
Is it worth my money and time in the current state it is in right now? A review of PUBG in February 2018 can help me decide that.
Turnaround success stories like Bladerunner: Director's Cut and games like the current version Rainbow Six Siege are exceptions to the rule, not the norm. Just because a small handful of games (and an even smaller number of movies) have managed to come around to becoming much better than they were on release doesn't mean that the current way of reviewing games is wrong. These exceptions to the rule *do not* justify a change in the way consumers are informed of videogames as they are released on launch.
I'm not worried that I'll miss out on turds that have later been reworked into gems (to paraphrase your way of putting it). There are already so many games (and movies) that are already released as gems on day one that are deserving of my time and money. So if I miss out on 1-2 (or 10) of them, I don't feel any hint of regret.
If a game or any work of art demands that critics revisit it years later, then that's up to the creators of those works to convince reviewers to do the revisiting. We should not automatically grant that kindness and second looks. It should be earned.
So, for example, if PUBG ends up becoming a gaming masterpiece in 2025, then PUBG Corporation needs to (say) release what they consider to be the finished product for free or at a *highly* reduced price to convince skeptics to give the game a second chance. It's up to them to convince us.
Chain of memories has been out for 14 years. I think it’s been patched enough to do a fair review on.
No.
Ff15 still has massive issues, characters are still kinda bland Luna is still a dull Character lacking in development, one extra scene doesn't help much..other characters are still forgotten such as the pope king guy. And Lunas brother? White haired man, I still don't remember his name overall still a vary flawed game with some good moments...not much has. Changed
metacritic is trash watch İHE video of it it explains my thoughts perfectly
agreed