Just to interject a bit of pertinence, in relation to this review claiming the unpatched version is the reason for the reviewer's experience is fundamentally dishonest and just another excuse the author is using to justify his lack of professionalism and idiosyncratic dislike of the game. The patches that have been released since the day the game hit the shelves wouldn't have made any difference to his core issues with the game--IIRC they fixed a game halting bug in Act 5 and some video card incompatibilities, maybe a few other npc and quest bugs as well as stability concerns with Vista. He never made it to Act II, and the issues he describes with the graphics, interface and inability to understand the game were not substantially affected by either patch AFA I can see.

So really, whether he played the patched version or rushed through a review copy with bugs he doesn't mention is irrelevant to the main point of most people's objections to the incompetence of the piece.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I watch with astonishment people both here and at the Codex making dozens of posts about how it is wrong to review an unpatched version or play for only a few hours. By doing so they are entirely missing the point and at the same time they are becoming the pawns in his game. As if he would have played the patched version that would have made any difference lol.

On the reviewing patched vs unpatched versions, I disagree entirely with you, MudsAnimalFriend.

The DVD is irrelevant - it's simply a delivery mechanism for the bits that actually provide that experience. It's a waste of my time to read a review that expounds on issues that have been fixed and simply won't exist for the great majority of players picking it up after the patch release.

A good review will point out the version played and should probably note that the original release was a mess (or whatever) but wasting the text on an outdated version serves no purpose to me.

If only that were so. For the majority of games the DVD is also the copy protection, sometimes in conjunction with more malignant software, and is required to run the game. As far as many publishers are concerned it is also where their responsibility to deliver the product begins and ends. Patches may be produced but this does not mean that publishers are required to ensure their availability, nor that warranties are valid after patching, nor that a patch will not override the previous EULA. There may well be a super patch available on release day, but that doesn’t mean obtaining it is trivial nor guarantees its availability at a later date.

Are you stating that the great majority of PC gamers patch their games as a matter of course? Can you point me towards studies or statistics that support this? I'm not saying yeah or nay, I'm simply curious as the purely ancedotal evidence I'm familiar with suggests the opposite. Console advocates claim that patching is a hassle many (ex-)PC gamers, themselves included, simply don't wish to deal with. For my part, if a product is faulty out of the box I want to know about it so I can avoid it.

If you are waiting for software to not be faulty out of the box, I can't imagine you playing that many games. ;) The great majority of PC gamers NEED to patch their games as a matter of course. I think what Dhruin was implying is that, pain in the butt to do so or not, PC gamers patch their games. You're right, no statistics to prove this, but again given the state many PC games are in, I can't imagine people not doing this.

As far as the arguement is concerned about console games not requiring patches, well.. I think a lot of them do need patching. I recall playing more than one game that had some serious bugs on the X-box. PC gamers switching to consoles will allow them to get away from patching, but won't allow them to get away from bugs. Just look at the reviews for Two Worlds console edition - it's getting slammed for things that the PC patches would fix. And maybe I dreamt this up, but it seems that I've read advertisments somewhere for downloading patches and additional content for console games.

All that combined with the fact that PC patching is releatively easy nowadays - A handy software program like ATI's Gameshadow does all the hard work of keeping track of your games and the latest patches for them. Plus installing a patch is usually two clicks or so - you don't even have to point it to a directory anymore, it finds the game for you.

All those factors make me think that it's very bad judgement to write a review on an un-patched game when a patch is available. A reference to the patch and/or suggesting that players get the patch is definitely important.