Methods for technically assessing games prior to buying them?
How do you avoid buying games that are technically unstable and buggy, especially in cases where the publisher is doing its best to try and avoid a refund?
Big reviewers sometime fail to mention how unstable a game is, even quite some time after its launch, which is understandable since they have very little testing resources. For instance, I recently bought The Division 2 after many reviewers praised it's seemingly stable launch, though the game seem unstable for many and Ubisoft are avoiding refunds.
And on the same note, how do you know that a game has become stable after you've patiently waited for a while?
I recall everyone shitting on Batman Arkham Knight for being quite broken on release to PC, but after a while it was claimed to have been mostly fixed, so I "gambled" and bought it and was relieved to find that it truly was fixed.
Posted May 22, 2019, 5:01 PM UTC
It's such a hard thing to pin down really, because of the ever changing nature of games with patches. I think when we tend to come to games later here, it's usually after all the patches have been done and put out, so we tend not to see them. I think worst comes to worst, steam user reviews (while being quite a mess) can still give you an idea if a game is particularly broken - people get pissed.
Oh but what about games that are not on steam? :)
Nearly every game has a dedicated subreddit.
From my recent experience with Division 2, those subreddits are more likely to silence any problems or criticism towards a given game.