"Fallout 4" Release Raises Questions About Reviews of Buggy Games (kotaku.com)

RogueyWon writes: Fallout 4, the latest instalment in the long-running video-game series and one of the most hyped titles of the year, was released on 10 November. The game has generally been reviewing well, currently holding a Metacritic score of 89. However, a number of reviewers have noted the very large number of bugs present in all versions of the game and have, in some cases, reflected on the difficulty that these pose for reviewers, despite still awarding positive overall write-ups. Can it be ethical to recommend a product to consumers on the basis of its strengths, despite knowing that it contains serious faults?

Comments

Reminds me of this quote

[ThePyro]

I find myself reminded of this quote:

MILLIONS OF BUGS! We're only eliminating the crash-bugs, everything else is hilarious and we're keeping it

- Goat simulator devs

Re:Yes?

[Kjella]

Disclosing or dismissing? "Sure it has a few bugs, but I'm sure they'll get fixed soon and it's a great game 9/10", please put me on the exclusive interview/preview/kickback list and not the shit list for your next game. Game reviews don't have the greatest reputation for integrity, to say the least. Oddly enough launch sales are crazy high despite except for first to level in MMORPGs there's rarely any hurry. So if you give it a kick in the teeth because it's buggy and not very playable right now the publishers tend to not like you. And content is king, if you don't have anything special except the post-release reviews everyone can do you're likely to go out of business.