Support NeoGAF

[ForsakenLotus]

Do they normally fundamentally change the way the game is played?

It's not uncommon for Day One patches to add stability and major bug fixes. Should a site like IGN give a game a score based on a game without the Day One patch (especially since they often get access to that patch early as well) even though the vast majority of players will download the patch and never experience the issues? Should game scores essentially have an inconvenience tax for needing patch?

I certainly don't think so, and I don't think there is a middle ground either. Sure, having a 1 GB Day One patch is frustrating, but it's a momentary setback the first time you boot up your game. In some cases an entire game needs to be installed before it can play anything more than a small demo. Regardless, considering that many sites don't change their review scores after posting, and as far as I know Metacritic doesn't allow changes at all, so lowering a game score based on a version that conservatively 90% of the people who buy it can play the same day they bought it seems not only harsh but unreasonable.

The Master Chief Collection needing 20 GB's is a farce and should absolutely be criticized; however, that's a pretty rare occurrence and quite frankly what matters is how good or bad the game is when it releases. If a publication wants to wait a couple days to see if a major patch comes out, cool. If they publish based off of the state of the game at release, that's cool too. Ultimately reviews are supposed to be a tool for consumers to help decide whether a game is worth their money and time - a review that doesn't accurately reflect what they should expect is not meaningless but actually harmful.

 

[Plasma]

They'll be hypocrites, if this were an ubisoft, activision or EA game everyone in this thread would be all saying how shitty Hello Games are handling this, but nah, the bias is too strong.

This is pretty much how I see it as well, seems like a lot of double standards in this thread.

 

[ForsakenLotus]

This is pretty much how I see it as well, seems like a lot of double standards in this thread.

There is a difference between complaining about Day One patches and believing reviewers should review the version of the game that consumers will play.

I know people want to see this game fail, but let's please be reasonable here.

 

[Kintaro]

It's not online-only nor does it require PS+.

What the hell did I just say?

Re: Reviews - Reviews for this game will probably be useless at this point. Reviewers can't review the game post patch in any amount of reasonable time because a) they didn't get any advance copies and b) they would have to download the patch anyway and c) the hype over the patch adding SO MUCH that it will give the impression that any impressions could only be made after a significant amount of time.

So, Hello Games/Sony really put these guys in a pinch. Reviewers will get the game shortly before actual gamers and by that time, Streamers will be the ones people will be looking for. Reviewers will have to play a good amount of time to explore the game like everyone else, and by the time the review is out, it won't really matter much. Plus, people will have the built in excuse in saying the writer didn't spend enough time with the game to "review it fairly."

Gotta admit. It's a good move.

 

[Deckard Chapel]

You almost got me.

Well then I suppose that I almost proved my point

 

[CecilRousso]

This is pretty much how I see it as well, seems like a lot of double standards in this thread.

So what standard is the right one, and the wrong one? If people are sympathetic towards Hello Games, but not Ubisoft, should they change their stance towards the former or the latter?

 

[gocubs]

I think most reviews will be reviews in progress. I don't ecspect scores until the end of the week.

 

[Plasma]

There is a difference between complaining about Day One patches and believing reviewers should review the version of the game that consumers will play.

I know people want to see this game fail, but let's please be reasonable here.

I don't want to see this game fail I just think a lot of people are giving this game a pass that's all.

Besides most reviews will be based on the version with a day one patch I think it's useful to have some out there that review what actually shipped.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

are we gonna get a post like this on every new page?

Probably?

 

[Green Yoshi]

If the update is that important why didn't they postpone the release date to September?

 

[Katana_Strikes]

If the update is that important why didn't they postpone the release date to September?

Why when they can release the game now? And with a patch ready straight away.

 

[boneyjangles]

I hope they don't rush out reviews before they finish exploring the entire universe.

 

[Backfoggen]

I hope they don't rush out reviews before they finish exploring the entire universe.

There might be a planet somewhere so dope it will bump it up to 9/10 easily.

 

[MThanded]

I hope they don't rush out reviews before they finish exploring the entire universe.

oh you

 

[CecilRousso]

If the update is that important why didn't they postpone the release date to September?

1. It's difficult to move the release just one month, when the process of certifications, manufacturing, distribution and promotion have started.
2. At some point you just have to start releasing your product, and a release of software is always a compromise.
3. Delays are being painted as signs of weakness, by primarly gamers, but also some parts of the gaming media.

 

[Dirtyshubb]

I'm one of those people that think reviews should be amended to reflect the current status of a game.

We live in a time where games get updated and can/will be very different to the one that was released. Always the best example of this is Burnout Paradise, if you were to look at the base game and then the current version with all of the improvements that have been made it would be vastly different and thus a review from release wouldn’t do justice to what the game actually would be if you bought it now.

At the end of the day the sole purpose of a review is to give potential buyers a look into what the game is currently like. Some people seem to think that reviews are actually for punishing developers for pushing out games that are broken or for keeping them honest and preventing this from happening. While I firmly agree that a review should mention any problems that there are which could put people off from buying a game, it's not something that should be set in stone if things change in the game and actually goes against the whole purpose of your review if you don’t give them an up to date reflection of what the game is.

Of course this brings up the question of 'but how long does this go on for, do you keep updating forever?'. Well if you can go through your review and find something that is no longer true due to being changed or fixed, than that should be amended and if a final score is used changed if it makes a different to the final product.

 

[jamesmccloud]

I'm one of those people that think reviews should be amended to reflect the current status of a game.

Agree. It was strange to play Driveclub, for example, after reading many reviews solely focusing on problems with the game, that apparently plagued it at launch. But playing it this year, it was one of the absolute best driving games I have enjoyed. Contrast with my own experience made the reviews feel really outdated and inaccurate.

 

[breakfuss]

I'm one of those people that think reviews should be amended to reflect the current status of a game.

We live in a time where games get updated and can/will be very different to the one that was released. Always the best example of this is Burnout Paradise, if you were to look at the base game and then the current version with all of the improvements that have been made it would be vastly different and thus a review from release wouldn’t do justice to what the game actually would be if you bought it now.

At the end of the day the sole purpose of a review is to give potential buyers a look into what the game is currently like. Some people seem to think that reviews are actually for punishing developers for pushing out games that are broken or for keeping them honest and preventing this from happening. While I firmly agree that a review should mention any problems that there are which could put people off from buying a game, it's not something that should be set in stone if things change in the game and actually goes against the whole purpose of your review if you don’t give them an up to date reflection of what the game is.

Of course this brings up the question of 'but how long does this go on for, do you keep updating forever?'. Well if you can go through your review and find something that is no longer true due to being changed or fixed, than that should be amended and if a final score is used changed if it makes a different to the final product.

Who is supposed to keep with all the changes in every game? Seems impractical.

 

[King_Moc]

They'll be hypocrites, if this were an ubisoft, activision or EA game everyone in this thread would be all saying how shitty Hello Games are handling this, but nah, the bias is too strong.

Are you sure about that? Seems like you're the biased one here, tbh.

 

[bidguy]

is this the uncharted review thread ?

 

[OmegaDL50]

Agree. It was strange to play Driveclub, for example, after reading many reviews solely focusing on problems with the game, that apparently plagued it at launch. But playing it this year, it was one of the absolute best driving games I have enjoyed. Contrast with my own experience made the reviews feel really outdated and inaccurate.

There are some folks that still believe that Diablo 3 is still in the state it was in at launch and don't believe Reaper of Souls did completely wide sweeping changes in terms of balance, loot drop rates, monsters encounters, how skills work, etc.

Some games become drastically something different compared to the initial release (Driveclub and D3 for instance)

Some folks think games only deserve to be reviewed once and updates and additions shouldn't ever be a factor. As if those things weren't crucial for an individual for buying a product. Which should always be the base premise of a review, to educate the consumer on the product they plan to buy.

However in the reverse token, it's unreasonable to expect every single review to be updated for every single game that has recieved changes. At least I don't expect journalists to devote their work schedule modifying an existing review to be relevant to the current version when they have a workload of new and current games coming out that also require their attention.

In the case of NMS this clearly isn't the issue, the update goes up today and game is not even officially released until tomorrow. All digital owners on PSN and Steam wouldn't notice anyways because the code for the patch would already be included in the most recent build of the game they are downloading.

 

[Atomski]

I'm sure the game will be completely different in a year. They should just hold off till then.

 

[SomTervo]

I have been avoiding clicking spoilers, but I clicked this. I haven't been this confused by what's in this game before now.

Interesting.

There's a LOT of interesting stuff in the game people don't know about.

It's not just empty procedurally generated planets with procedurally generated animals running around on them.

So damned good. Thanks for sharing. Probably more info that most reviews will cover.

The 'choose your own adventure' was the vibes I was getting, and hoping for. Just like those 70's/80's SciFi novels. So amped!!!

Damn straight man. Can't wait to hear your thoughts!

fix it.

this thread DELIVERS in so many levels. Thank you man.

Oh yeah, Minecraft does have weather. Doesn't have storms though right?

No Man's Sky has biomes, but it's one biome per planet.

You know what I meant.

Mm, both use voxels afaik, it's just that Minecraft uses the voxels as the actual terrain, whereas NMS uses voxels purely as an abstract representation from which the polygonal terrain is generated.

From what I've read/seen in those talks, NMS's procedural algorithms for terrain gen are just a magnitude more complex than what Minecraft uses.

Right on.

It's strange that there are missions that require a two-day walk, and yet the day/night cycle is 12 minutes. The super-short day/night cycle, and having every planet using the same cycle, is baffling to me.

Yeah, basically it seems like planet rotation is uncoupled from actual day/night cycle. Must just be a practicality thing - not being matched with a planets rotation might make for odd gameplay moments which are hard to explain for 'casual' users.

During testing people were flying down to planets then returning to space confused because the station wasn't where they left it, concluding it was a bug. That's the only mention of problems when they were talking about realistic planet rotation and day/night cycles. By the sounds of the patch they're just slowing down what's currently there.

Aha righto.

Wolves go after sheep in Minecraft. Who is wearing the smarty trousers now?

 

[The Dutch Slayer]

They'll be hypocrites, if this were an ubisoft, activision or EA game everyone in this thread would be all saying how shitty Hello Games are handling this, but nah, the bias is too strong.

For me that slices two ways because you have to expect form a large company like EA or Ubi to do better then this.
But from 10 folks who just don't have the resources I think its fine.

But maybe that is just me.

 

[Dirtyshubb]

Agree. It was strange to play Driveclub, for example, after reading many reviews solely focusing on problems with the game, that apparently plagued it at launch. But playing it this year, it was one of the absolute best driving games I have enjoyed. Contrast with my own experience made the reviews feel really outdated and inaccurate.

Exactly, if you had just believed that the game was in the same state that most reviews would still say you would have never got to try a game that you ultimately love.

Who is supposed to keep with all the changes in every game? Seems impractical.

Well it's not my job to allocate resources for companies but off the top of my head maybe have a rota where a member of staff goes through OT's and official forums and compares the changes made to what issues were listed in the review and judge if it needs updating. This of course would be dependent on what reviews they have done.

It being resource heavy is a bit of a cop out in my opinion. Don't get me wrong I appreciate how there is never enough time to do everything that needs to be done but when your primary job is to review games and thus give people who come along and read said reviews a true picture of what the game is, if you just have some out of date and untrue depiction you are failing at your job.

 

[KooopaKid]

This is such stupid, roundabout thinking.

Whatever happens, there's always going to be down time when the game is going through cert and disc printing. Something productive needs to be done during that time. Why not further polishing of the game? Why would we want a game month later?

Come on.

You release a finished product. Period. Case in point: 90% of Nintendo games.

 

[Vancouver]

An 8/10 without the Day 1 Patch?

That's like an 11.5/10 under normal circumstances.

 

[robotrock]

You release a finished product. Period. Case in point: 90% of Nintendo games.

Eh. Splatoon's roll out over the course of a few months was pretty awesome.

 

[King_Moc]

You release a finished product. Period. Case in point: 90% of Nintendo games.

Great. You know for most companies that means immediately laying off all the programmers, since they have nothing to do until the designers finish coming up with a new game? Also, as far as I cam tell, Hello Games have released a 'full game'. The patch just came out, and the game is released tomorrow.

Eh. Splatoon's roll out over the course of a few months was pretty awesome.

Lol, also this. It might be more or less a one off at the moment, but you'd have to be nuts to think they aren't going to do that again.

 

[Acorn]

I think most reviews will be reviews in progress. I don't ecspect scores until the end of the week.

Yup. They got copies too late to beat the game and also the patch changing tons of things.

 

[SomTervo]

Yup. They got copies too late to beat the game and also the patch changing tons of things.

Yep. It's a game that can suck up a lot of time, and in a good way.

I was totally primed to use my Hyperdrive for the first time and leave my starting system (which I loved) but found a better ship on a planet. Fixing up that ship and getting the parts I needed to have a Hyperdrive ready again, to jump system for the first time, took me like 1.5 hours and led to several new adventures. Minor distractions can lead to huge branches of your experience.

 

[maxcriden]

Over 1000 posts. Is there more than one review yet?

 

[nonnocere]

Over 1000 posts. Is there more than one review yet?

No. There never will be in this echo chamber.

MUHUHAHAHA!

 

[SomTervo]

No. There never will be in this echo chamber.

MUHUHAHAHA!

It's the second level of game-criticism hell.

One review of an unfinished version... And all the lost souls waiting for more

Spoiler

Forever

 

[Ozium]

when do the reviews go up? I mean besides the one

everything hinges on the metacritic score!!

 

[DriftingSpirit]

Over 1000 posts. Is there more than one review yet?

Nope. This thread is pointless.

when do the reviews go up? I mean besides the one

everything hinges on the metacritic score!!

The embargo ends 12AM eastern tonight.

 

[MikeyB]

You release a finished product. Period. Case in point: 90% of Nintendo games.

A lot of software has switched to a service model. See one of the most popular productivity suites.

Besides, they will release a finished product. Tomorrow.

 

[level1]

You release a finished product. Period. Case in point: 90% of Nintendo games.

Yes, you release a finished product. On release date.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

The logic used to justify day one patches seems to boil down to lead time. It airs a month to get through Cert and get your discs to store, so having a day one patch lets you work on things until the last minute. It's efficient.

Well - couldn't you just have planned to release a month later? Maybe if you built enough time for decent QA and Cert we'd have less bugs and games wouldn't need so many patches.

Also in not sure how I feel about a day one patch almost being DLC for the game and fundamentally changing it, not just fixing bugs or tweaking performance. That feels like a 'well we couldn't delay it again..'

Here's the thing though. Say HG waited another month to go gold and the game now comes out in September.

Come September, you know what's going to happen? A fucking day 1 patch, because there's always more bugs to deal with, and HG is intent on adding features to this game in updates.

No matter what you do, patches will happen, and Day 1 patches are pretty standard now.

 

[Snkfanatic]

Yep. It's a game that can suck up a lot of time, and in a good way.

I was totally primed to use my Hyperdrive for the first time and leave my starting system (which I loved) but found a better ship on a planet. Fixing up that ship and getting the parts I needed to have a Hyperdrive ready again, to jump system for the first time, took me like 1.5 hours and led to several new adventures. Minor distractions can lead to huge branches of your experience.

Good lord this post...ok time to go preorder digitally on PS4.

 

[Wil348]

This is Uncharted 4 all over again. I predict another review thread.

 

[bbalde]

Is there a possibility, on future disc press they integrate the day 1 patch. Sorry but in my country internet is shitty, so its a no buy for me unless...

 

[SomTervo]

Good lord this post...ok time to go preorder digitally on PS4.

It's good man.

It's fucking good.

This is Uncharted 4 all over again. I predict another review thread.

Yeah I'm surprised this one hasn't been locked yet, haha.

Is there a possibility, on future disc press they integrate the day 1 patch. Sorry but in my country internet is shitty, so its a no buy for me unless...

Sorry to hear it mate.

Right now I don't think they've announced anything, but it's possible that future presses will include the updates - and maybe they'll announce a Game of the Year edition with loads of updates on-disc.

For what it's worth, the pre-patch game is still very good indeed.

Also, the day-one patch isn't too large, it's 800 megabytes. That's easier to swallow than a few gigabytes at least?

 

[maxcriden]

No. There never will be in this echo chamber.

MUHUHAHAHA!

Nope. This thread is pointless.

Thank you both. I'm not sure I've ever seen a review thread this long based on just one review.

 

[Snkfanatic]

It's good man.

It's fucking good.

I was on the fence, worried it wouldn't live up to the hype like Spore, also worried about PS4 performance but watching steams today with the patch put that to bed.

I just want to explore, build new ships, and dogfight with said ships. And this sounds like it will do just that and more.

 

[Fardeen]

i have a bad feeling about this game...

 

[SomTervo]

I was on the fence, worried it wouldn't live up to the hype like Spore, also worried about PS4 performance but watching steams today with the patch put that to bed.

I just want to explore, build new ships, and dogfight with said ships. And this sounds like it will do just that and more.

The Spore comparison always was, and is, a complete joke. This game has more great content in its pinky than Spore.

I haven't experienced any dogfights yet and I've got about 7 hours under my belt. It's a huge sandbox though so there's an element of chance to your experience - perhaps in your very first system there'll be a battle going on. The more you encounter alien races the more you can get on board with battles, too. Ships need a lot of upgrades to be in fighting condition, too.

Also remember you don't build ships in this game (yet) - you

Spoiler

find them crashed and repair them or you buy them outright

.

 

[Atomski]

Is the PC version going to include the patch in the initial download? Due to being released later?

 

[King_Moc]

The Spore comparison always was, and is, a complete joke. This game has more great content in its pinky than Spore.

I haven't experienced any dogfights yet and I've got about 7 hours under my belt. It's a huge sandbox though so there's an element of chance to your experience - perhaps in your very first system there'll be a battle going on. The more you encounter alien races the more you can get on board with battles, too. Ships need a lot of upgrades to be in fighting condition, too.

Also remember you don't build ships in this game (yet) - you

Spoiler

find them crashed and repair them or you buy them outright

.

I had one dogfight in 8 hours. The new patch is supposed to increase the frequency of them.

 

[Demoskinos]

I love that they are going to drop this patch. Its a nice passive aggressive fuck you to all the outlets who went out and got early copies so they could run stuff early. Anyone with a review tomorrow is going to be a total joke.