When Lair was released near the end of August last year it was met with less than stellar reviews. While the game looked good and the premise was solid developer Factor 5 decided to only include motion control (through use of the sixaxis PS3 controller) in the original release of the game. It's safe to say it didn't work quite as well as they had hoped and review scores were quite low because of it.
Now, 8 months later however, an add-on patch available though the playstation store includes the missing analog controls to allow players to use the thumbsticks instead of the motion control.
Similarly, "Hellgate London" was released to poor reviews. However though patching and updates the game, while still far from perfect, is noticeably better. It's nothing new to online multiplayer pc games. Everything from "Star Wars Galaxies" to "World of Warcraft" are constantly being patched and added to in order to keep players happy and interested.
Is this enough to warrant the major gaming outlets to pull their original scores for the game? Maybe not entirely, but it might be fair to add an amendment to the original reviews. Now that gaming has shifted heavily into the online world of patches, fixes and add-ons where do reviewers draw the line. If they do start to re-review or make amendments will it start a snowball effect where developers receiving a lower range of scores constantly patch their game in hopes of bringing up their original score?
Or should they just learn from their mistakes and move on?
No comments:
Post a Comment