If you cannot actually play the game because of "connection lost" screens it deserves the low score it gets, I think the first thing you should be able to do when buying a game is actually be able to play it

@RpgSama

Agreed. If a game is literally unplayable it should get a fat 0/10, and only get bumped up at a later date if the game becomes functional. (Not saying Fallout 76 is a 0/10 btw, haven't played it) The state of games being complete messes at launch is a blight on the industry and what better way to dissuade this than to tell it like it is?

Take as long as you like, the game is garbage regardless.

Then every game should get a "re review" to account for patches, fixes, etc. Or......devs shouldn't release the game until it is ready to be played. Don't get why reviewers have to do their job twice because devs didn't do their job right the first time.

I didn’t say that the re reviews should be done to change people’s mind about the game when it initially launches. I’m just saying the re-reviews should be done just to inform people about how much the game has changed since launch.

And it wouldn’t be the first time that a game got re-reviews either. Game like No Man Sky got re-reviews alot after one year and after the big patch hit.

@CarlDechance as a consumer I don't see how that would be a bad thing as I like to make an informed decision about games I purchase.