Hey guys,
A lot of things to answer (for), in no particular order:
Bad reviews? Really? Because I've been scouring the net for the better part of last week, and a clear majority gives us 6-8 out of 10. So far I've found only two bad reviews: both
GameSpot and
A.V. Club gave us a negative score (A.V. Club's review is almost annoyingly vague and superficial, but GameSpot's review is a well written piece, read it). Which is not to say there aren't more, I just haven't found them yet.
Since we like to be honest with our players and not just gloss things over, we will collect and display all reviews on our forums, even the negative ones. (The review links in my previous message can attest to that.) Let me know with a PM if you find more negative reviews than those two, ok?
You might wonder why more reviews aren't negative, since
Pirates of Black Cove was found to be released in a very buggy state. In general, bugs are a difficult issue for reviewers. Bugs tend to get squashed with patches, or it could be just your computer that's at fault. Getting hung up on the bugs and dropping the score based solely on the bugginess factor will make your review less credible, if not completely outdated, when patches have come out and eradicated the bugs you wrote about. This doesn't mean that the review shouldn't mention that there's plenty of bugs -- he definitely should, but a good review doesn't get hung up on bugs, just like a good review isn't just about graphics, music, effects, UI etc.
Since the core mechanics, gameplay and presentation are not likely to change, that's where reviewers try to keep their focus -- find out what the game is about, what it's like. The reviewers report on that, and for example say that the game is fun when it works, but it badly needs a patch to be the game it deserves to be.
In any case, yeah, I agree: the first week after PoBC was released has been pretty disastrous, mostly due to bugs crashing the game. We have already put out two patches which solve at least some of the problems, including most known CTD issues. And yes, Steam users were left with the shortest straw. Wish I could say more about the subject, but I can't. Let's just say that the situation didn't make us happy, either.
As for the huge size of patches, that can be explained like this:
Let's say that you're writing a 15-page short story. Somebody has pointed out a misspelling in page 2, line 27, and you dutifully edit it to be right. Simple and quick, right? But, when you upload the text on your site, you won't upload a Notepad text file saying "Yeah, there's a misprint there, this is how it should go", but you replace the old file with the new one. It's simpler that way, and a lot less things can go wrong.
The same thing goes to files that get patched. There might be just one number changed in one line in a 300 MB file, but it's easier to replace the whole file than try to find a way to slip that correction into an already existing file. The total size of files getting replaced is, in this case, 900 MBs in the first patch alone.
Huge patches are not uncommon, but one thing is certain: when a patch is huge, it usually addresses a whole lot of issues -- when you want to replace, say, files of 50 MB or less, there's quite a many of those files in a 900 MB set, which means a whole lot of problems just went away. That's
also saying that there were a whole lot of problems to begin with, mind you