Support NeoGAF

[MiketheBSG]

You have to forgive me, as all my years being a Nintendo fanboy, I was not aware how much games could be patched up until recently and perhaps this may have been discussed before I cared. With Nintendo games back in the Wii days, when a game was reviewed, nothing typically was updated after the game went gold, so after release, the rationale behind review scores tended to still be valid.

A few years back I got my first glimpse at what real patches can do to games when I FINALLY bought a non-Nintendo system w/ PS3 a few years ago and then PS4 Pro last year. From a technical point-of-view, those Digital Foundry videos that show frame rate, graphical effects, even resolution changes before and after patches can be pretty dramatic. Or, perhaps a game was missing a ton of content that was not previously disclosed. I remember all the complaints people had of Destiny at first, and even I got bored of the game when it first came out, but now, they have made so many improvements to the game that the rationale of the scores you see online may be invalid. Another example was Bomberman for Switch. My how this game has changed from version 1.0.

If you go to sites like Metacritic and Open Critic, you can kind of tell from the user scores of the acceptance of improvements from patches because while the user scores may not be in the exceptional range of 8.0+, I see games that originally in the 5.0s and 6.0s creep towards 7.0 after some months.

Sometimes, I feel like I may miss out on a good game because of how professional reviews rate a game that fixes a number if not all issues, but because of industry standards, you don't typically see the scores revised. I know one can say to use my own judgment and get what I feel like playing but I'm very conscious of how I spend my disposable income, as I'm sure many of you are. So, what's your take on unchangeable review scores, or, does it happen and I'm just not seeing it?

 

[Raw64life]

I'm not a fan of giving companies leeway for releasing an incomplete product. Anything that might pressure them into waiting until their product is actually finished before releasing it is a good thing IMO.

 

[MiketheBSG]

Yeah....that's true too, changing scores can give developers the idea they can release incomplete products, but I do wonder how many game sales were missed because people were stuck on those Metacritic/Open Critic scores not being good enough.

 

[Savantcore]

I think it's definitely an area somewhat unique to games that should be addressed by reviewers and aggregate sites. It has happened of course (Polygon's review of Driveclub comes to mind) but it's certainly a tricky area.

Not everyone has access to the internet (and, as such, patches) so if they were to go out and buy a disc copy then they'd be playing the vanilla version. I think it would be a novel idea to revisit reviews after each patch announcement/release with an addendum to the review, but don't let it replace the original review as published.

A side benefit of this is that if a company does release a fairly shoddy product and then works hard to fix it or make better, then that says a lot about them as well. One, that their original product was below par, and two, that they had the passion and initiative to make good on it.

Sorry for rambling. I've been drinking.

 

[hikarutilmitt]

I think it would be fine if the game had serious issues that were patched relatively quickly. But, in that case, the original should still be there, unedited, and the update clearly marked as an update. That and, quite frankly, most reviews posted get their traction within the first week or two of a game's release, so updating wouldn't really serve much purpose for the majority of their users.

 

[ckaneo]

Nah, cause developers don't need more excuses to release broken games.

Keep the score the same, but update the review if it warrants it.

 

[Eumi]

Devs aren't owed review scores. A site reviews a game that comes out when it comes out. Why should they bother to re-review a game every time it gets updated long after people stop caring about it?

 

[Audioboxer]

This is why games need to ship "finished". Not 80% done with the last 20% to be patched in weeks after release, or putting out a completely broken game and asking for another 4~8 weeks to fix it. The consequence for that tends to be reviewing badly, which may impact on your sales. It's a small "check" that is in place to warn developers/publishers.

There's nothing sinister about genuinely improving a solid foundation post-release. Just don't expect to release a broken mess or an objectively unfinished game and patch it in later with absolutely no consequences. Minor technical issues are often given a bit of breathing room, but too often these days games ship with horrendously broken netcode, unforgivable frame rate drops, crashing and at times game-breaking bugs.

Ask the devs/pubs why release day review embargoes are pretty much now the standard for every single game? Occasionally you get someone confident enough in their own product for a review a week or so before launch. More often than not the rest are banking on day 1/week 1 patches to fix their games. I accept games are far more complex than ever, but that is also why teams tend to be in the hundreds and Q&A is far more in-depth than ever before (not to mention most MP games put out betas).

 

[Johndoey]

I think maybe a separate article or small update to a reviews text mentioning if a serious issue has been addressed would work. I don't think updating the score is the way to go.

 

[Pudge]

In an ideal world, reviewers would be able to go back and offer updated impressions of games that they cover, but with the volume of games that are being released nowadays and the meager resources of even the biggest publications, it's all but impossible to keep reviews updated.

You have to review what you have in front of you when you're writing, and that's how it's going to be unless interest in written reviews skyrocket and ad money starts pouring in.

 

[Gaspard]

Reviews should coincide with what the public buys on Day 1 imo.

 

[D4Danger]

They reflect the state of the game at the time of review which is usually the same time people can buy it. I doubt anyone has the time to go back and most people probably don't care.

 

[Protome]

If a game gets massive changes through updates but a review is only based on the original release then what purpose does the review serve potential customers?
In the same way if an update ruins a game in some way (for example, JC3's updates making the framerate even worse on console) and a customer is thinking of buying it, don't they deserve to know that?

That said, it's impractical for reviewers to re-review games that get updated just because of how little money there is in it but in an ideal world reviews would update with the game because at the end of the day, reviews primarily exist to inform potential customers of a game about it's quality if a review is based on a version of the game which no longer exists, what is the point of it?

 

[Muchi Muchi Pink]

I think it should be done and sometimes it is already.

 

[mclem]

I very much have the opposite view to many of the posts here; if a review is intended as a buyer's guide, then it shouldn't be locked to only being actually relevant at launch. If I'm looking at a review today for a game from 2012, I'm not *that* interested in how it functioned in 2012.

For all the talk of 'punishing' developers for releasing broken software, reviews aren't for punishment, they're intended as a buyers' guide, and so they need to be useful to buyers today.

 

[prag16]

if a review is based on a version of the game which no longer exists, what is the point of it?

I can see the argument both ways, but this is what seals the deal for me. I guess they don't all need to go and updates scores if they don't want to, but adding editor's notes to reviews would probably be good practice. People who want to be informed will get a better picture of reality, rather than a months old piece, much of which may no longer be entirely applicable.

 

[Chris Ticehurst]

How about we don't obsess over what number Metacritic and Open Critic has and just decide what games we like to get by own own judgement?

 

[Woo-Fu]

Reviews should coincide with what the public buys on Day 1 imo.

Day 1 from the buyer's perspective is more important for a review than day 1 from the game's perspective, isn't it?

If I'm using reviews to make a purchasing decision a review that reflects the game I am buying today is more useful than one that reflects the game at a previous point in time.

That said, an updated review can point out that the score would change had it been reviewed after the update without actually updating the score if people are that worried about keeping developers/publishers "honest". Kind of pointless, they're not releasing games when they can, they're releasing them when they have to based upon a project plan created years ago. Release and patch is here to stay, folks.

 

[Raysoul]

Zelda BOTW is 10/10. Nintendo fixes the framerate and provides dual audio so it should be rated 11.5/10. I already deducted 0.5 because they put Hard mode on DLC, which would be not that hard according to Neogaf.

Spoiler

They should have launch reviews and current reviews, and remove score altogether

 

[DeathoftheEndless]

Researching the current state of a game is the buyer's responsibility, not the reviewers'.

 

[always crazy bacon]

Devs aren't owed review scores. A site reviews a game that comes out when it comes out. Why should they bother to re-review a game every time it gets updated long after people stop caring about it?

Not everybody buys games day one. Games can evolve nowadays and if its required free content then the reviews should be updated.

 

[Fahzgoolin]

No. You release a game, you get critiqued. You don't get more than 1 first impression. Anything after that must be learned and earned.

The video game industry doesn't need more excuses for releasing incomplete, buggy, or unfinished software.

Doing so would be anti-consumer.

 

[MiketheBSG]

Something I was thinking was have a review history. I think this helps both developers and the consumer. By doing this, if a developer improves a game because of a patch, then the consumer can see that and reconsider a game they otherwise would not have purchased and generate more sales for the publisher.

BUT.....if developers are getting lazy and are releasing half-baked games for us to beta test, consumers can see this trend in the initial reviews of games, back off from buying them initially, therefore deter this tactic from happening by the publishers.

 

[Earthpainting]

It's a tricky situation. Publications might not have the manpower or the time to re-review something. These things cost time and money, which you're probably not going to recup from this extra effort.

You're right though that updates can have a significant impact on a game, and it can lessen the worth of these pre-patch reviews. These reviews can quickly become time-capsules that no longer serves its purpose. As a reviewer, you might get a feel for which developers are going to put in the effort post-release, and you could give them some leniency when you're writing your piece. Bethesda's Open World games and Telltale's Adventure Games are notoriously buggy affairs on day 1, but it hardly ever hinders their reception. These bugs are expected to be fixed over time, and they usually are. In the case of Super Bomberman R, I'll admit I was not anticipating a single patch, let alone multiple ones.

I don't even know how one would review a PC game with the existence of third party mods and tweaks. Reviewing the shipped product as-is seems straight-forward, but it might not really be representative of what a huge chunk of the audience will actually be playing. Elder Scrolls games, Minecraft, and even Stardew Valleys live off mods, and you won't know what the community is going to contribute to the package ahead of time when you're reviewing. In some instances fan-fixes elevate bleh ports into great, definitive versions of these games.

I always wondered how difficult it would be to review those games that release relatively light on content, but will roll out more over the coming year. Something like a Splatoon or an Overwatch are not the same games they were at launch, and I can only imagine we're going to get more and more examples of this as time goes on.

 

[Kart94]

UH how about no. Games should be working good when they are released. Shouldn't be given better scores just cause they fixed something that shouldn't be broken at launch.

They are free to do an article on some updates on the game and how they would review it now, but the review itself shouldn't be altered.

 

[Protome]

How about we don't obsess over what number Metacritic and Open Critic has and just decide what games we like to get by own own judgement?

This thread isn't really about review scores, not sure what you meant by this post?

Your own judgement based on what exactly?

One of the best ways of informing yourself about the quality of something is to hear other people's opinions of said thing. Which is what a review is.

UH how about no. Games should be working good when they are released. Shouldn't be given better scores just cause they fixed something that shouldn't be broken at launch.

Games don't always get improved by updates. What then?

 

[Zomba13]

For the most part I'm ok with it, if the reviewers make it clear. Like, say a game came out and was pretty good but had major performance issues making it borderline unplayable for the average person and gave it a bad score because of that and then the devs fixed every issue and got it running at 60fps then I think the review should be updated (not changed, a thing at the bottom or top that states it's an update and the new score and reasons why).

Most of the time an update isn't that big of a deal but I feel for some "game as a service" type games or games that evolve and change over time then yeah, update it every so often if you care and change the score if the updates make a difference. Like a complaint about a new Moba or fighting game might be the small roster size and lack of variety in playstyles but then that complaint in a review becomes meaningless 6 months or a year later when new characters have been added with new and interesting playstyles.

I mean, reviews at their core are buying advice. Is this game worth getting? Should I see this movie? If the review doesn't reflect the game I'm getting then the review isn't doing its job. If you just want to look at reviews as "does this person like it at launch/pre release?" then yeah, don't change the scores or just look at the original text and score and ignore anything about the updates.

 

[prag16]

No. You release a game, you get critiqued. You don't get more than 1 first impression. Anything after that must be learned and earned.

The video game industry doesn't need more excuses for releasing incomplete, buggy, or unfinished software.

Doing so would be anti-consumer.

This is nonsense.

Look at Mass Effect Andromeda. If they release some more patches, then in July some outlets do "re-reviews" and raise their scores from say 7 to 8.5, that won't matter. The damage was done. The first impression ship has sailed long ago. But at least now consumers would have some professional review coverage to look to that reflect the current state of the game rather than reliving the launch day hate train which may no longer be relevant whatsoever at that point. (And as other said don't just change the score entirely; just add a blurb with an updated score as part of the original review stating the reasons why it was done; and it doesn't have to be 'required' or 'expected' of ALL outlets obviously.)

EA isn't going to say, "Oh, we made it better through patches and got some long-tail sales at $30 a pop so meh, stay the course." They still will know they missed out on many full price sales because the initial reception was very mixed. They won't want that to happen again. Maybe it'll still happen again, but if it did, it wouldn't be because some outlets continued to cover the game as it was improved through patches, hence making the consumers more informed. This is pro consumer. Not anticonsumer.

 

[Mivey]

As long as it follows the proper procedure for an amendment, I'd be okay with it.
So first getting voted on by both houses of Congress, by a two thirds majority, and then getting ratified by two thirds of all current US states.

Spoiler

I'm not okay with it.

 

[Kart94]

This thread isn't really about review scores, not sure what you meant by this post?

Your own judgement based on what exactly?

One of the best ways of informing yourself about the quality of something is to hear other people's opinions of said thing. Which is what a review is.



Games don't always get improved by updates. What then?

Still the same. Doesn't matter. Why should they rewrite their score just cause the game i didn't or did get improved via patch. Like i said, the game should be working fine in the first place. Like i said, they can just write an article about the recent patched games and everything and write a review on that, but not change the score of the initial review.

There is a reason why first impressions are a thing. Unfair or not, Mass Effect 4 is going to be judged as the buggy mess it is at launch.

 

[ogbg]

If the purpose of review scores is to guide purchases then I think they should reflect the present state of the game. They don't have to overwrite the original score but maybe just append the article with an updated current score if the author has the time and desire to do so.

 

[Protome]

Still the same. Doesn't matter. Why should they rewrite their score just cause the game i didn't or did get improved via patch. Like i said, the game should be working fine in the first place.

While I agree that the game should be working in the first place, games also get updated with new content as time goes on and sometimes this too introduces problems (or adds more value.) What use is a review to anyone if it doesn't accurately reflect the product you're buying? What use is a review as a "first impression" when that's not what users will see after the first update?

No. You release a game, you get critiqued. You don't get more than 1 first impression. Anything after that must be learned and earned.

The video game industry doesn't need more excuses for releasing incomplete, buggy, or unfinished software.

Doing so would be anti-consumer.

How is consumers having more information an anti-consumer move? Reviews exist to aid people in purchasing something, surely a review which doesn't accurately reflect the product being purchased is in fact more anti-consumer?

 

[hydrophilic attack]

every game is better with patches

 

[Baleoce]

I'm not a fan of giving companies leeway for releasing an incomplete product. Anything that might pressure them into waiting until their product is actually finished before releasing it is a good thing IMO.

Yeah although I know there's ambiguous cases like MMOs where it's usually just professional to leave your review until a suitable time period has lapsed, mostly down to things like the initial spike in server congestion from the week 1 players not being indicative of what quality of play is going to be like for those who stick with it, I don't think most other genres should really get away with shipping something half baked.

 

[Kart94]

While I agree that the game should be working in the first place, games also get updated with new content as time goes on and sometimes this too introduces problems (or adds more value.) What use is a review to anyone if it doesn't accurately reflect the product you're buying? What use is a review as a "first impression" when that's not what users will see after the first update?



How is consumers having more information an anti-consumer move? Reviews exist to aid people in purchasing something, surely a review which doesn't accurately reflect the product being purchased is in fact more anti-consumer?

I just told you what i just said they should do a few times. Make another article detailing the patches and other changes sense then. Not rewrite the original review. Do i have to spell it out for you! Once again, first impressions. You don't give someone another chance of a job interview if they screwed up the first one now do you?

Rewriting reviews gives devs excuses to make buggy crappy games and then they can say *oh hey we patched it*

 

[Okami Haundo]

It's an interesting scenario, and I've seen plenty of reviewers amend their scores after patches/updates. I think the biggest question reviewers need to ask in that scenario is whether or not a patch addresses issues that they feel affected their view of the game. If it doesn't, I don't see the need to constantly revisit their verdict.

Using Super Bomberman R as an example, the recent patch that brings things up to 60FPS may not be worth an amendment to my (non-existant) if my main issue was that I found the game boring. If the game being 30 FPS were my biggest complaint, I would obviously want to go back and amend things. That being said, I think it's also important to make the amended sections of the review extremely clear. I'd expect something like that to mention how I used to find issue with X, Y, or Z thing but it was fixed on X date.

 

[ViolentP]

Reviews should not be amended in my opinion. Developers should take responsibility for the product they put out, not their level of support of that product.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

Cash-strapped organizations aren't going to waste time updating reviews that nobody is going to read, there are far more productive uses of their resources.

If people in the enthusiast blogosphere want to spend their copious free time re-reviewing old games, have at it.

 

[Protome]

I just told you what i just said they should do a few times. Make another article detailing the patches and other changes sense then. Not rewrite the original review. Do i have to spell it out for you!

Rewriting reviews gives devs excuses to make buggy crappy games and then they can say *oh hey we patched it*

What difference does making a new article and updating the old one actually serve beyond some weird need for holding grudges? I mean, you can even specifically mark the updated part as being such, so that the original review is still there for archival purposes. Separating it out just means it's more likely a consumer trying to find information on a game is less likely to find it.

 

[LordKasual]

You have to forgive me, as all my years being a Nintendo fanboy, I was not aware how much games could be patched up until recently and perhaps this may have been discussed before I cared.

jesus, im sorry

So, what's your take on unchangeable review scores, or, does it happen and I'm just not seeing it?

uhhhhhhhhhhh......this is complicated.

I feel like the answer really has more to do with the politics of gaming and less about the product itself.

I also feel like there's some hypocrisy in being against amended scores, but perfectly okay with "definitive" editions getting different reviews entirely.


If the end result is that people get a better game, and the developer gets praised for making a better game, then I feel as though it's a win-win for everyone.

I also do not believe developers should be damned to bad publicity forever just because they released a game that could have been improved, especially not in a modern development environment. Despite how much people love to moan about "lazy developers", the job isn't easy, and everyone isn't an AAA developer. Sometimes it's out of their control.

To an extent, it feels like giving them a free pass to release an unfinished game, to fix after screwing early buyers. But at the same time, shouldn't reviews reflect the current state of the game? Helping the consumer make an informed decision.

Sadly, way too many people treat scores as console warriors bs. I tell ya, we'd be better off without em.

Every bad review score isn't the result of the game being "unfinished" or an attempt to screw early buyers.

 

[RootCause]

To an extent, it feels like giving them a free pass to release an unfinished game, to fix after screwing early buyers. But at the same time, shouldn't reviews reflect the current state of the game? Helping the consumer make an informed decision.

Sadly, way too many people treat scores as console warriors bs. I tell ya, we'd be better off without em.

 

[Kart94]

What difference does making a new article and updating the old one actually serve beyond some weird need for holding grudges? I mean, you can even specifically mark the updated part as being such, so that the original review is still there for archival purposes. Separating it out just means it's more likely a consumer trying to find information on a game is less likely to find it.

Are you Dense!!!! why does it need to be updated? The game was bad at launch. they might have change it a bit, but the review itself shouldn't be updated. Sailed the boat. No one is going to read an updated review. Better make a better article.

 

[Protome]

Are you stupid!!!! why does it need to be updated?

Are you okay?
I said in my post, it's easier for the people who the review impacts, the consumers.

 

[Dirtyshubb]

I have said this before but the whole point of a review is to inform the reader/viewer on the quality of a piece of entertainment.

If your review doesn’t reflect the content or quality then it isnt representative of the actual product and is failing at its job.

Of course this wouldn’t be needed for every game as not all get extensive add-ons but if you were to read a review of something like Burnout Paradise and then go and play the actual game you would get something completely different to what you thought you would.

It would be like doing a review for a film and when the director’s cut comes out simply keeping the original review for it instead of reviewing the new footage and discussing how the changes affect it and what the overall movie is now.

A reviews primary purpose isnt to punish games that are ‘unfinished’ but simply reflect the current state of the game. If the game is crap when it comes out then say it is, but if the devs take the time and effort to change and improve the game it should be something that is applauded and not criticised and a review that states what the current state is are much more useful than one that is out of date and no longer true.

 

[Fahzgoolin]

This is nonsense.

Look at Mass Effect Andromeda. If they release some more patches, then in July some outlets do "re-reviews" and raise their scores from say 7 to 8.5, that won't matter. The damage was done. The first impression ship has sailed long ago. But at least now consumers would have some professional review coverage to look to that reflect the current state of the game rather than reliving the launch day hate train which may no longer be relevant whatsoever at that point. (And as other said don't just change the score entirely; just add a blurb with an updated score as part of the original review stating the reasons why it was done; and it doesn't have to be 'required' or 'expected' of ALL outlets obviously.)

EA isn't going to say, "Oh, we made it better through patches and got some long-tail sales at $30 a pop so meh, stay the course." They still will know they missed out on many full price sales because the initial reception was very mixed. They won't want that to happen again. Maybe it'll still happen again, but if it did, it wouldn't be because some outlets continued to cover the game as it was improved through patches, hence making the consumers more informed. This is pro consumer. Not anticonsumer.

How is consumers having more information an anti-consumer move? Reviews exist to aid people in purchasing something, surely a review which doesn't accurately reflect the product being purchased is in fact more anti-consumer?

Critiquing and grading a $60 software based on what it offers is nonsense?

If you release bad content, it deserves to be reflected in your scores. If a dev wants to follow up with patches to fix things and earn goodwill than fine. That's their business decision to support their game or not to appease consumers and future consumers.

Reversing scores after people purchase something will encourage bad industry practices and a lot of games will become more early access products masked as fully finished products. Justified consumer outrage is important for future consumer satisfaction.

You may disagree, but calling it nonsense is ridiculous. I'm amazed people want to give businesses so much leniency and excuses.

It's not a reviewers job to continually update their reviews everytime a patch is released. Believing this is possible seems like ignorance. Sure, if someone wants to do a follow up video, article, or blurb that talks about the merit of the current state that's fine.

Consumers can educate themselves. A score is a grade, not a moving barometer of current satisfaction.

 

[Aroll]

Most games get their initial sales in the first month, correct? So the incentive is already there to get good review scores day one. Without them, it could negatively impact sales. Yes, maybe 3, 4 months down the road the review score gets better due to patches or the addition of free content (example here - Splatoon - which was infinitely better 6 months from release than day one... though that was on purpose. Different approach I guess?), I guess that looks good to developers and publishers?

But do we have any tangible evidence that updated review scores actually increases sales?

If someone can give me any evidence to back that up, that would make the case stronger. Plus, generally these reviews that get updated usually denote the original score was x, because of z. (usually, not all the time).

I think updating review scores is a policy that is more beneficial to consumers than it is to encouraging publishers to push out incomplete products. That happens due to high costs and wanting to strike while the iron is hot. If a game is say, a 75 on metacritic for 2 months after launch, but say a year later is now an 83 - it's not like it really helped increase sales on the whole. It just helped some consumers who waited decide to hop in when the game was in a better state.

The issue with companies releasing incomplete products isn't going to go away anytime soon methinks, and reviews or changing reviews isn't a factor IMHO. I like that reviews get updated. It's really just part of post release coverage. Take reviews for even hardware like the Switch - a review today would be vastly different than say, a review next year, when the full online functionality has launched and been on the market long enough to work out kinks. I understand why games are pushed to market too soon. It almost KILLED the assassin's creed brand trying to reach these super strict guidelines and while each game spent three years in development, sometimes that isn't enough (BoTW took 5.5 years, so I mean, some games just need a longer dev period than a few years, which is something a CoD series can get away with due to the type of game it is).

So I understand why games are pushed out too fast. I also understand why reviews get updated. Even BoTW today is better than it was day 1.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

I'm not a fan of giving companies leeway for releasing an incomplete product. Anything that might pressure them into waiting until their product is actually finished before releasing it is a good thing IMO.

Reviews aren't intended to reward or punish companies. They're intended to help consumers decide what to buy.

If a game has been extensively patched, and a review isn't updated to reflect that, it's doing the consumer a disservice IMO. And by the way, that can go two ways—what about games that are updated with micro-transactions after launch? If they strongly imbalance the game, don't we want consumers to be informed?

 

[rubius01]

How about we don't obsess over what number Metacritic and Open Critic has and just decide what games we like to get by own own judgement?

But how am I supposed to do that without Metacritic?!?!?!

 

[Carn82]

Hmm.

I think there should still be a very critical review when a game launches. It should even take a 'day 1' patch in account; if the game really needs the day 1 patch to 'function properly' it should reflect that in the review, either through a big disclaimer, or as a seperate score. With unplayable I'm referring to being actually broken; and not specifically QoL improvements, or small bugfixes, or framerate improvements. A 30 fps game with drops to 25fps isnt "unplayable", it's just an annoyance that might get fixed later down the line.

publishers/dev yelling that "day 1 patches are the norm these days and gives us an opportunity to keep working on the game a bit more" is all fine and dandy, but there will be people who are not able to get that patch and the "base game" should be judged as such.

For online games, or "games as a service", or games that are designed to get periodic updates that introduce new features, improvements, expansions and other stuff I think it's fair to re-review them.

 

[ItsTheNew]

I mean, if a game patches in single player and a review docks the score because of it, I think that a review should be updated With a footnote. Smaller review sites understandably would probably pick and choose what patches would influence the score, but if not then their reviews become useless essentially over time since they are no longer accurate.