Video games are quite a unique medium. Not only in the way they function and the fact that they are interactive, but even in the way they are delivered to us. With consoles going online, video games have had a wave of downloadable content come to them along with patches for nearly ever game. It’s because of this very reason that I think the standard way in which we review games should be reexamined. Downloadable content and patches should be taken into account when released, and the review score should reflect such changes.The idea for this topic dawned on me while reading an excerpt for a Fat Princess review. The reviewer made mention of the core mechanics being good, but the overall experience not being great. However, with some DLC, he thought it could be a good game. That was really a thought that never crossed my mind. DLC can actually make a game better or worse. So, I would like to look at two different features that the online-capable consoles provide us with. As I said earlier, those are downloadable content and patches.
Downloadable content is perhaps the trickier of the two to examine so it seems like a good place to start. The easiest way to approach it is to look at a game that isn’t heavy on narrative but is built around a core gameplay mechanic. This may be shooting, real-time strategy, anything. Most of these games also rely heavily on level design, or maps. Now, imagine that a game comes out with really great core gameplay mechanics but shoddy level design. Initially, a reviewer may score this game low because the experience there is not enjoyable. Now, fast forward a month or so when some new maps have been released, possibly for free. If these maps are amazing and fun to play, shouldn’t they be taken into consideration for the score of the overall game? Typically, a reviewer will review DLC separately from the game proper. Here is my problem with this. On the one hand, yes, there are people who don’t have their systems online and will just be playing what’s in the box. But, for those with their systems online, some of the updates happen automatically. Here is where the trouble happens. If I look at a score for a game and see that it got a five, I may be turned off. If at the time that I am thinking about buying it there has been DLC released that makes it better, I may never know just looking at the score. So, in a sense, I could be wondering about a completely different game than the one that has been reviewed.
It gets a little more interesting when looking at narrative-heavy games. Sometimes, DLC is released that adds to the story on the disc. Again, the same question. What happens if this content makes the game better or worse? Should it not be taken into consideration, and should the overall score not be revised? In a way, this can almost serve as a director’s cut of a film. Maybe the studio didn’t want a scene in there so it was pulled for theaters. On the DVD, a scene is put back in, and it could change the entire viewing experience. It should be reexamined in this new light, in my opinion. Games have this unique ability to deliver content post-release, and I believe that game reviews should be just as unique as the medium they are reviewing.
Patches seem to be a bit more cut and dry. Sometimes a game ships with a major bug, and a reviewer is left with no choice other than to give it a bad score. A month down the line a fix could be released for this bug, and the game is an instant classic. Doesn’t the reviewer owe it to people who can download this patch to take another look at the game and let them know how it works now? Again, there is a large group of gamers that may not have the ability to download the patch, and that’s fine. The initial review is for them. But when two groups of people could be getting two separate experiences, I think it is the reviewer’s responsibility to clarify between the two.
So, what’s the solution? Well, there are a couple of possible solutions. One, a reviewer could go back in and change the initial review score. The problem with this is that it neglects the audience that can’t alter their game through patches or DLC. That leads to the second solution. At the end of a review, if a game has been altered due to some patch or DLC, there should be a section where the reviewer can give comments as to the effect of these changes and the ability to give an additional adjusted score if desired. This way the original score is kept intact, and people buying the game post patch can have all of the available information.
The fix for this problem is quite simple, and it is one that I hope we see implemented soon. With a medium that can change in a heartbeat, we should offer a review system that can do the same. While some people may argue that this allows developers to skate by and put out a better product later, the reality is that they have bosses to answer to and ravenous fans that can’t wait to get their hands on the product. They are going to try to get a game out as soon as possible, or they are going to be forced to. Not changing reviews for new content is not only doing a disservice to the players but also to the creators. We all make mistakes, and if a developer is going to recognize a mistake and make it right, I say more power to them. As I said before, we should have a review system that is as unique as the medium we are reviewing. What good does it do us if the review we are reading is no longer for the game that we are playing?