I think PC Game magazines need to play catch-up!

[Bingo 0]

Ask anyone whose been playing games these past few years (and whom have an internet connection!, and they'll tell you that they're used to downloading the latest patch for their favourite FPS/RTS or whatever.

Patches are not just fixing bugs, they're adding new content, listening to the community (sometimes ) and improving the experience overall.

I think, therefore, that magazine ratings can be quickly out-dated. Take that Czech review of 54% (or whatever it was). Perhaps fair for that Czech-beta, but does Arma still deserve that as of patch 1.05? Will it deserve 54% in a years time with patch 1.x?

Magazines should re-review popular titles with subsequent patches as it can drastically affect a rating. Especially when you compare Arma to what it was at 1.00, where it's at now at 1.05 and where it will be in the future.

Just a thought, I'm sure you're all

[Baff1 0]

Armed Assault will get a new review in the U.S.

Too many PC games are sold in a shoddy state for reviewers to encourage it.

I don't support it.

If a company wants a new review, it should re-release when it feels it's product is up to the standard that will secure it a better one.

[baddo 0]

I don't think so... it would be a giant waste of time for the magazines, to keep track of every patch for every game they ever reviewed and write a new review every time they see a patch changed the game more than just a little bit. A computer game magazine can only review a product in its current state. If a game developer / publisher wants better review scores then they better do something about it on their side before release date.

If the system was like you describe, it would encourage developers / publishers to publish even more unfinished products and make customers feel even more disappointed.

Also I must add about customers getting used to download patches for games. It shouldn't be so. The whole computer software industry is doing the same thing; their products are so complex and so difficult to get right the first time that they just have to release patches. Which is sad but that's how it goes in this industry.

[Bingo 0]

Good points.

I too wish that games were released in a "don't need to patch" state like the old days.

In fact, those days weren't so long ago. I agree it would be bad to encourage developers to release crap under the guise that they know they'd get better reviews later and still make their Christmas-deadline and milestone bonuses.

The software I work on doesn't have the luxury of patches... it works with alot of real-time data, and if it went wrong in the background and didn't get noticed, it's not just a case of fixing the bug... the reprocussions are immense. Test, Test, Test, Test, Test, Test and Test again. Then get the wife to Test it. Then the dog.

I sometimes wonder if the current deficiencies in the ArmA engine are due to behind-the-scenes voices from Military types pointing out that it shouldn't be "quite" as good the military sims, otherwise, why would they bother to invest in it, as opposed to just buying ArmA off the shelves?

[troop 0]

I think, there have been just too many (false) promises

from publishers and/or devs about 'future' possible

patches/addon contents, which made reviewers often

'anticipate' an waaay better score of release version '1.0'

and all too often, those promises were never fullfilled.

Thus, reviewers took the full piss..

(You've made me buy this 'game' because I thrusted

your review and 'outlook' to future fixes...)

--

This has (thankfully! ) changed in the past 2-3 years or so.

Because of so many ultrahyped (and ultrabugged! ) game releases

it has become rather widespread to strictly review the

RTM 1.0 and not care anymore about whatever promises are made.

-

Towards the gamer, this is absolutely fair, imo.

If an company wants to sell an game nowadays, they *better* make

sure, RTM 1.0 is playable from A-Z, 98% bugfree,

overall fun and enjoyable by the target audience, which ultimately feeds them.

-

Unfortunally, or so it seems, hype still > fair RTM 1.0 review.

Gamers *still* tend to buy the most rubbish crap, if its shoved

down their throat long enough. And the companies know that all

too well. Once they got their figures for an particular game,

they may make an patch/addon..or not.

Next game;..same game. And its got so bad.

-

So, an 'bad' review (and NO re-review) 'should' push publishers

to take more care in future..for better quality..which leeds to better

reviews+MORE sales.

Most of them couldn't care less, and I am very happy, there

are some outstanding exceptions.

-

Dont get me wrong;..whatever forced BIS/publisher to sell

an immature 1.0, not fit for release, it could be the end of

an company...

What they are doing now, I believe, is not just working hard to

the bone to fix their 'baby', but to build up confidence as well

for 'Game 2'

Lets face it; they must.

-

And about all those negative comments here;..what if BIS

ceased to exist tomorrow?

Anyone happier then? God, no!

Lets keep this in mind and be helpful in the current situation;

as unfortunate as it is (was! )

And word of mouth (about commitment) *will* sell ArmA (+Game 2)

and keep the game, we all (want to) love, around.

Thats my hope, anyways.

[bootleg soldier 2]

Remember though that games can go the other way.....

Look at BF2, in my opinion it was at it's best after the second or third patch (which came out fairly quickly) after that it started going weird and i think was ruined.

For BF2 i don't think that there was to much customer feedback that was listened to, where as for ArmA i think that BIS will have to as the fan base is many times more informed about the game thanks to OFP, so i don't think things are too bad  

[Baff1 0]

I was happy with version 1 of BF2.

No need to patch it at all on my account.

Patches for expansions I understood, but otherwisae I think it was just an excercise in pandering to the forums.

A PR stunt to show that they were supporting their product.

[Fred DM 0]

leading german game mag GameStar regularly re-tested games after a patch had been released. i haven't read the mag in a few years now, but i bet they still do it.

not every single game, though, only the more important ones. i remember Gothic 3 got a re-test in at least one german game mag.

personally, i think a lot of magazines gave ArmA too high marks. especially the SP content doesn't deserve 80+ %.

[Duffers 0]

I agree. PC GAMER should be shot over their ArmA review.

They stated they were playing the 'General European release' i.e. Czech/German version. A version woefully underpatched and not even up to 1.04. The game got slated on its bugs and 'non-finished' state.

In the same magazine however they condradicted themselves by apologising for a late review stating, "We will only review the version you will be playing from the shop."

Gimboids!

[HamishUK 0]

Having done reviews of products and software myself it's a reviewers job to give an overview and opinion on the out of the box finished product in the state it was received.

I personally don't agree with reviewing how the product 'may' finally appear in a few years. After all many companies do re-review after 12-24 months. If Bohemia did not send a latest 'UK' release copy for review to PC Gamer then it's the fault of the developer and not the editorial. So why should PC Gamer be shot? Seems more like a fault of Bohemia's marketing to me!

Personally though most people read reviews and make there own mind up based on experience and dropping in on the forums.

Me..I played OFP once when I was at my cousins in Canada. The adverts drew me to ArmA and eventually the forums. The screenshots from Parvus and the others were what sealed it for me.

[marcusm_uk 0]

Quote[/b] ]I too wish that games were released in a "don't need to patch" state like the old days.

This is complete fiction. Such state never existed in the first place. You obviously never played games during the c64 or Amiga era when a broken game stayed broken. Nevermind bugs that fdisked your pc.

One of the many tiresome myths out on the net.

Doesn't give publishers right to release broken games but things are far better today than then. Games today have much better production values.

marcus

[monkeyboy27 0]

I think it's a lot worse when it's the other way round. I've gone out and bought plenty of games on the merit of their reviews, only to realise the reviewer must have played the game for all of 5 minutes to not realise it's a bug ridden POS. Medieval total war 2, for example, got fantastic reviews, so I bought it, only to realise it was a completely broken POS that's going to be waiting about 2 years before enough patches come to make it playable. IIrc Battlefield1942 was getting 70-80% reviews when it first came out because it was a bit buggy, but that didn't put off the gamers.

[Bingo 0]

Quote[/b] ]I too wish that games were released in a "don't need to patch" state like the old days.

This is complete fiction. Such state never existed in the first place. You obviously never played games during the c64 or Amiga era when a  broken game stayed broken. Nevermind bugs that fdisked your pc.

One of the many tiresome myths out on the net.

Doesn't give publishers right to release broken games but things are far better today than then. Games today have much better production values.

marcus

It's not fiction whatsoever.

Every piece of software you purchase will have bugs, some more than others.

I had a speccy and then an Amiga before I got to the PC. Sure, lots of the games I invested in had bugs, but never were they showstoppers, and never were they blatant.

I never said that software used to be released bug-free, that is almost an impossibility. Patches for games are a recent desktop-necessity, not an archaic one.

[marcusm_uk 0]

Quote[/b] ]I too wish that games were released in a "don't need to patch" state like the old days.

This is complete fiction. Such state never existed in the first place. You obviously never played games during the c64 or Amiga era when a broken game stayed broken. Nevermind bugs that fdisked your pc.

One of the many tiresome myths out on the net.

Doesn't give publishers right to release broken games but things are far better today than then. Games today have much better production values.

marcus

It's not fiction whatsoever.

Every piece of software you purchase will have bugs, some more than others.

I had a speccy and then an Amiga before I got to the PC. Sure, lots of the games I invested in had bugs, but never were they showstoppers, and never were they blatant.

I never said that software used to be released bug-free, that is almost an impossibility. Patches for games are a recent desktop-necessity, not an archaic one.

Did you play 2 Amiga games in total?

I had hundreds and I can say that now, there was no way to patch games, unless they released something through magazines (BBS was hardly used for patching anything). When you say show stopping, you probably think of some feature you don't like. Show stopping back then meant that the game never even loaded or simply crashed everything.

Fact is, if you bought something broken, it stayed broken. Fairy Tale for instance. And many more on both C64, Amiga and Spectrum.

In my book it was even more unforgivable since they never had to deal with dozens of hardware incompatibility issues.

You are letting nostalgia get in the way of reality.

Marcus

[Bingo 0]

Quote[/b] ]I too wish that games were released in a "don't need to patch" state like the old days.

This is complete fiction. Such state never existed in the first place. You obviously never played games during the c64 or Amiga era when a  broken game stayed broken. Nevermind bugs that fdisked your pc.

One of the many tiresome myths out on the net.

Doesn't give publishers right to release broken games but things are far better today than then. Games today have much better production values.

marcus

It's not fiction whatsoever.

Every piece of software you purchase will have bugs, some more than others.  

I had a speccy and then an Amiga before I got to the PC.  Sure, lots of the games I invested in had bugs, but never were they showstoppers, and never were they blatant.

I never said that software used to be released bug-free, that is almost an impossibility.  Patches for games are a recent desktop-necessity, not an archaic one.

Did you play 2 Amiga games in total?

I had hundreds and I can say that now, there was no way to patch games, unless they released something through magazines (BBS was hardly used for patching anything). When you say show stopping, you probably think of some feature you don't like. Show stopping back then meant that the game never even loaded or simply crashed everything.

Fact is, if you bought something broken, it stayed broken. Fairy Tale for instance. And many more on both C64, Amiga and Spectrum.

In my book it was even more unforgivable since they never had to deal with dozens of hardware incompatibility issues.

You are letting nostalgia get in the way of reality.

Marcus

I had over 100 games for the Amiga. A mixture of popular and Public Domain.

I am well aware of what showstopping means, and never purchased a game that "crashed on loading".

Maybe your Amiga was shitty?

And, nostalgia or not, my experience on the Amiga was rock-solid releases. You may have had a crappy experience, but that doesn't mean it was like that for the rest of us. Wow... sounds like Arma after all

[Fiasco 0]

Much as I wish it wasn't the case, even at patch version 1.05 the game doesn't deserve better then a 54%.

The time will probably come where the game deserves a new review but it hasn't go here yet.

[marcusm_uk 0]

I had over 100 games for the Amiga. A mixture of popular and Public Domain.

So in other words. Your Amiga experience consists of playing mainly shitty freeware games? I am talking about commersial games. You don't complain about freeware games.

Here are two examples: Fairy Tale and Adventure Construction Set. Both contained show stopping bugs. There is a reason why Commodore went bankrupt. People grew tired of buggy games. Nevermind idiot management.

Nice try about shitty Amiga. I owned three different versions . The only thing that differed was kickstart versions and memory etc.

Fact. Todays games have less bugs, get supported after release (something that never happened in the "old days"). You also seem to have no idea about software development. I can compare, since I saw how games were made back in the "good old days", and how development is done today. Far more advanced games too. Not everyone is happy with playing crappy lookin gfreeware games.

Marcus

[Bingo 0]

I had over 100 games for the Amiga.  A mixture of popular and Public Domain.

So in other words. Your Amiga experience consists of playing mainly shitty freeware games? I am talking about commersial games. You don't complain about freeware games.

Here are two examples: Fairy Tale and Adventure Construction Set. Both contained show stopping bugs.  There is a reason why Commodore went bankrupt. People grew tired of buggy games. Nevermind idiot management.

Nice try about shitty Amiga. I owned three different versions . The only thing that differed was kickstart versions and memory etc.

Fact. Todays games have less bugs, get supported after release (something that never happened in the "old days"). You also seem to have no idea about software development. I can compare, since I saw how games were made back in the "good old days", and how development is done today. Far more advanced games too. Not everyone is happy with playing crappy lookin gfreeware games.

Marcus

My bad on the wording, by "popular" I meant commercial, and my point was that I played many of both.. Commercial AND PD. Never tried Fairy Tales and Adventure Construction Set to be honest, though I did have that Freescape engine... 3D Construction Kit... that was tons of fun.

I, like you, had different Amigas... A 500, 500+ and a 1200. My friends and I would do constant linkups on these with no problems whatsoever. I was of the opinion that Commodore went bankrupt because nobody was alloweed to copy the proprietary technology. Commodore themselves didn't write the games that were written for the Amiga... that's like pointing the finger at Sony because some PS2 game is crap.

I'm not entirely sure where you got the "no idea about software development" line from, it's what I have been doing all my life and am well aware of the processes involved in software from conception to sale. I admit that I did not witness software development back in the Amiga days (I did some barely noticeable PD contributions), my entire professional life has been on the PC.

I don't want to start a flamewar about this, like I said, it appears our experiences were fundamentally different. So much in fact that it has put us both either side of a proverbial fence

[Jack-UK 0]

Magazines always have to 'play catch up'.

They have to work ahead of time, they only get printed say.. once a month in a lot of cases? Which means they have to get early copies of games to write a review to be released on schedule with the game.

Also hopefully magazines will take into account the facts that bugs are almost always addressed by the game dev's... at least in PC titles...

[Sh1fty 0]

Why should PC gamer magazines patch the game before the review?

It is the responsibility of the developers to release a playable version of their game. If they cant do this, then the game shouldn't get any high ratings

[desertfox 2]

First of all .. down with the Amiga guys .. I had an Atari 1040 STE !!

I wanted to say that you can hardly compare the developement of a 120 Kilobyte game with ASCII graphics to nowadays games. Back in the days, games were not seldomly made by single individuals in a matter of weeks.

And concerning the thread-title:

1) If you release a game in Beta stage, you get a bad review. Good so.

2) I think some magazines do indeed re-review titles that got an utterly bad critic initially, and are then "emergency patched".

3) I don't read game magazines anyways. They are full of shit. If I'm not sure if a game suits my taste, I get it from the videostore to play it a couple of days, and make a decision wether to buy it or not.

[mr reality 0]

I don't read game magazines anyways. They are full of shit.

I never once bought a game because of a review. I was late coming to Flashpoint as i only saw a few picutes in magazines (that red tractor) and the pictures didn't do anything for me. It wasn't until i was bored one day and just picked up the gold edition real cheap that i got into flashpoint.

I will say however that if i'd never heard of Flashpoint i would not of bought ArmA. I always checkout the official forums troubleshooting threads before i buy any game. I should of paid more attention to the troubleshooting threads on this forum shouldn't i ...

[Fiasco 0]

First of all .. down with the Amiga guys .. I had an Atari 1040 STE !!  

I wanted to say that you can hardly compare the developement of a 120 Kilobyte game with ASCII graphics to nowadays games. Back in the days, games were not seldomly made by single individuals in a matter of weeks.

And concerning the thread-title:

1) If you release a game in Beta stage, you get a bad review. Good so.

2) I think some magazines do indeed re-review titles that got an utterly bad critic initially, and are then "emergency patched".

3) I don't read game magazines anyways. They are full of shit. If I'm not sure if a game suits my taste, I get it from the videostore to play it a couple of days, and make a decision wether to buy it or not.

Down with the Amiga and Atari. It isn't squat unless Bill Cosby pushed it.

The Texas Instruments TI-99/4A!