1. First of all, awesome to read and a fascinating topic, one that I’ve thought about a lot over my years of writing reviews.

    I think the main issue is the obvious one; time. Going back to each game could nearly double the review process depending on how much has changed, plus you’d need a good memory of what the game was originally like.

    But you’re also completely right to point out that some games change massively, such as No Man’s Sky. I’ve not gone back to it but know from the reading articles and chatting to other peple that it has changed a great deal.

    For me it probably comes down to the fact that I still feel like the game at launch should be what the developers intended. That’s what I’m reviewing, not their future promises or plans. But the world is changing and updates have become bigger and bigger. Maybe it’s time to change.

  2. With games as a service becoming more of a thing. Its going to become more and more nesscary for reviewers to update reviews. Thats good news for gamers, that games can be updated so substanially that updates are needed. But its also more for us to do as reviewers.

    I did play No mans sky at launch, and i’ve played it after the numerous updates. They are barely even the same game anymore and its intial reviews don’t reflect its current quailty at all. Not every game needs a new review when its updated. But ones with changes to that degree do.

  3. For a long time, I didn’t use ratings in my reviews. Later I started using a seven-point scoring system, which I’m sure pisses off new readers. But I prefer rating things out of seven. I know ten points is the standard, but… I don’t know. I’m too contrarian.

  4. So far I don’t utilize a scoring system for my game reviews, simply as I think that an opinion about a game doesn’t tend to really translate well into numbered scores. That’s just me though, and many reviewers can indeed do a good rating system. With No Man’s Sky, I agree, it very much needed a second shot which it got through various outlets reviewing the Next update and sort of summarizing all changes made in the game. I never got a chance to review No Man’s Sky when it originally came out, although I’ve played it, and especially after the Next update it felt like a different game entirely, so I gave it a go and came away with much better opinions. There’s also games that have dramatically evolved over many years, such as Warframe and Rocket League, so again many gave them ‘updated’ reviews and it is important to go back to some of your older reviews and change them up if you have a different opinion. I’m planning to do a few in my 2016 reviews in the style of ‘Revisited’ category I have for older titles, but there’s such a large pool of newer games to still play through.

  5. Awesome post Trevor! Sharing how to review games and why it should be done is interesting. Video Game Reviews are important. They help improve a game and tell consumers what the game is about, its features, strong points and flaws. Thank you for sharing.

  6. Reblogged this on Around The Bonfire and commented:
    An interesting perspective on going back to review games after release. For my own personal take games as a piece of media are still held to a similar static perspective, a finished product like a movie or book. As games continue to be patched and supported following release there is a valid argument to be made for going back to a title in its ‘finished state’ although arguably when that occurs is open to interpretation. Either way an interesting take on this subject matter.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.