My Careface was flagged as "too-low" about this company. I guess more companies will do this with their games, release game not caring about whether its finished then half year or more later once they see sales high enough to warrant patching they will declare the game was released then and not earlier. You can even say, maybe next time they will say: "oh sorry we meant to say the game was early access all this time, we forgot to label it!" Retirement.

Creston wrote on Oct 29, 2015, 10:39:

eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 29, 2015, 10:21:
Uh X Rebirth is not a substantially better game mess even after patch 3.61 + Hotfix + FREE DLC ^^

Yes, it is. The game systems etc haven't changed, obviously, but technically it's substantially improved. If it was a 10% game on release day, it's now probably a 55-60%. It's not really much fun to play, but it's no longer broken.

Well we have different definitions of improvement then. For me the fact it ain't fun to play (compared to X³) is a pretty big factor in me calling it a mess and not improved The only valid improvement for Rebirth is obviously a re-design.

Still regret that the refund feature wasn't available back when Rebirth aired. It is the 1 game in my library I REALLY wish weren't there.

eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 29, 2015, 10:21:
Uh X Rebirth is not a substantially better game mess even after patch 3.61 + Hotfix + FREE DLC ^^

Yes, it is. The game systems etc haven't changed, obviously, but technically it's substantially improved. If it was a 10% game on release day, it's now probably a 55-60%. It's not really much fun to play, but it's no longer broken.

Uh X Rebirth is not a substantially better game mess even after patch 3.61 + Hotfix + FREE DLC ^^

And reading the steam forum for Arkham Knight would show theyarecomingforyou that nothing is fixed. The same bugs from release day are still in the game. I think this is just a huge PR ploy, they never did anything to fix anything. Heck, the game STILL has the rain loading bug

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Oct 29, 2015, 08:46:
Personally I don't think the criticism here is fair. The game was released a mess but it was pulled and they spent months improving it. Including reviews for the old version is confusing and doesn't paint an accurate picture. However, rather than removing them altogether they simply called them 'Pre-Release', which is accurate given the game was pulled and worked on considerably before re-release - they are still included in the aggregate score, which results in a poor score.

So? They released it in a piss poor state, knowing full well that it was essentially unplayable. The people who bought it at the time, full price, were never told it was a pre-release / early access version they were buying. Why does WB get to suddenly shake off their mantle and start fresh? No other titles have had that treatment.

It comes back to the age old adage of "should we re-review a game once it's been fully patched?" And the answer is no. The review was of the game at the time of release. Whether you spent X amount of time getting it fixed or not has no bearing on the way you released it.

The reviews should stand as a warning to people to never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER pre-order another WB PC game.

The game was originally released in a bad state. We know the publisher screwed up. However, they took action to address it and it's more than many other publishers would have done. Shouldn't we support that?

Oh please. Please stop it with this whole "OMG THEY DID SUCH NICE THINGS FOR US, WE MUST SUPPORT THEM!" rigmarole. People already supported them, by paying 60 bucks for their broken-ass game. This attitude that we should be grateful to publishers if they deem it worthy to fix the broken crap they shovel onto us is ridiculous.

And let's be honest here, the ONLY reason they went to this effort is because they were getting slammed with refund requests. Otherwise they'd have just shrugged and let people rot like they did before we (FINALLY) got a refund system.

I don't understand what people think they should have done once it had been released.

I dunno, stop whining about entirely fair reviews? Egosoft isn't whining about the old reviews for X Rebirth even though it is now a substantially better game. EA isn't whining about the old BF4 reviews, even though it is now a substantially better game.

But WB, the special little snowflake, deserves this treatment because they pulled the game from sales for a few months while they finally made it playable, just to stop the hordes of refund requests? What the bleep ever.



On a related note, why on earth did Valve give in to this? Or do publishers of games have the ability to modify the reviews themselves?

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Oct 29, 2015, 08:46:
I'm surprised they didn't just create an entirely new store page and give it a new name, like Arkham Knight: Ultimate Edition.

Personally I don't think the criticism here is fair. The game was released a mess but it was pulled and they spent months improving it. Including reviews for the old version is confusing and doesn't paint an accurate picture. However, rather than removing them altogether they simply called them 'Pre-Release', which is accurate given the game was pulled and worked on considerably before re-release - they are still included in the aggregate score, which results in a poor score.

The game was originally released in a bad state. We know the publisher screwed up. However, they took action to address it and it's more than many other publishers would have done. Shouldn't we support that? I don't understand what people think they should have done once it had been released.

Some people, me included, think that we shouldn't support them. They knew damn well the game was unplayable on initial release and they released it anyway. If no one had complained, they would have left it available. The only thing they're trying to do now is save their reputation. If they really cared about PC gaming, they'd have put the effort initially. Support devs who really care about the PC, without the need for our complaining. Also, I'm not blaming the employees themselves, just management and the people taking the decisions.

I'm surprised they didn't just create an entirely new store page and give it a new name, like Arkham Knight: Ultimate Edition.

Personally I don't think the criticism here is fair. The game was released a mess but it was pulled and they spent months improving it. Including reviews for the old version is confusing and doesn't paint an accurate picture. However, rather than removing them altogether they simply called them 'Pre-Release', which is accurate given the game was pulled and worked on considerably before re-release - they are still included in the aggregate score, which results in a poor score.

The game was originally released in a bad state. We know the publisher screwed up. However, they took action to address it and it's more than many other publishers would have done. Shouldn't we support that? I don't understand what people think they should have done once it had been released.

Cl1mh4224rd wrote on Oct 29, 2015, 08:08:

Cutter wrote on Oct 28, 2015, 18:54:
Why the fuck is Valve allowing this? This could potentially be a criminal issue.

In what way?

Cutter is moving into law now...

Cutter wrote on Oct 28, 2015, 18:54:
Why the fuck is Valve allowing this? This could potentially be a criminal issue.

In what way?

Krovven wrote on Oct 28, 2015, 19:40:
One thing that would be nice if they made the reviews tagged with the version number like is done on mobile stores.

I tend to agree.

The current Steam review system is not designed to accommodate game updates. So this puts publishers and Valve been a rock and a hard place. Are reviews still relevant if they are discussing bugs that have been fixed? Are reviews discussing gameplay now irrelevant just because unrelated bugs were fixed?

Having reviews separated by version is probably the best way to go. It's not perfect, but overall most people seem to be happy with the iTunes approach. That way you can see the reviews and scores for the current version as well as the overall average.

Right now Steam gets half-way there, but they only have two categories, "pre-release" and "release". Pre-release is not suitable for the initial release of this game. But how else do you separate reviews under the current system?

Agreed, Arkham Asylum was a pure gem, Arkham City was a bit less polished though still solid (and the PC version at launch was a disaster, or so I heard) and the Riddler challenges still makes me cringe (they are not the typical riddles that he would make save a few of them) and Arkham Knight...well, it's Arkham Knight, it's the Assassin's Creed Unity of the series and it's a damn shame.

The first one was surprisingly good. It was all downhill from there...

This comment was edited on Oct 29, 2015, 03:24.

Google Play handles this in a way that devs can't abuse in this manner. They simply put a note on old reviews that says "for an older version." Steam should do this, and for bonus points they could actually have it stick the version number on there.

Hehe.. someone doesn't know how aggregate scores are done on Steam.... dev can not change reviews in any way that would change aggregate score.

~~~ Removed ~~~

Need to slow down.

jacobvandy wrote on Oct 28, 2015, 22:18:
Yep, I'm also seeing the proper release date and an absence of the aforementioned review labels.

Wonderful! Thank you Valve. Way to look out for your customers.

HoSpanky wrote on Oct 28, 2015, 23:00:
Played for a bit, runs great unless I turn on the smoke/fog, which drags it down a little. No stutter whatsoever, but I'm running a pair of 970s and 16gb of ram. I'm not entirely sure why people are crying over it wanting 12gb of ram, ram is cheap. Inefficient? Yeah, it seems to be, but whatever. You guys are complaining about it and then saying you won't be giving them any money, well...then they don't give a fuck what you say. most of the people on these boards aren't happy with ANYTHING anymore.

My i3-2100 with 8GB and a single 960 would be considered laughable by today's standards and yet Witcher 3: Wild Hunt ran buttery smooth on this system with most of the settings maxed out. It was FULL of smoke, fog, rain, sun rays, and host of other effects; many happening at the same time. What you're talking about is "unoptimized" code on the level of Star Citizen's tech demos. Any game that "drags down a little" on basic smoke/fog effects through a pair of 970s and 12GB hasn't been optimized for PC performance. It's still a console game optimized for consoles and shouldn't be released until it's PC-ready.

This comment was edited on Oct 28, 2015, 23:42.

Krovven wrote on Oct 28, 2015, 19:40:
It's just a label.

They changed the Release Date to Oct 28, 2015. That's not just a label.

I'll still wait till GOTY edition.

I'm going to declare this game Shovelware. Even though this wasn't connected to a film.

Played for a bit, runs great unless I turn on the smoke/fog, which drags it down a little. No stutter whatsoever, but I'm running a pair of 970s and 16gb of ram. I'm not entirely sure why people are crying over it wanting 12gb of ram, ram is cheap. Inefficient? Yeah, it seems to be, but whatever. You guys are complaining about it and then saying you won't be giving them any money, well...then they don't give a fuck what you say. most of the people on these boards aren't happy with ANYTHING anymore.