Best practice for updating game reviews post-launch patches/DLC?

In the ever-evolving landscape of video games, a title released today can be significantly different a year later, thanks to numerous patches, balance changes, and substantial downloadable content (DLC). This dynamic nature poses a unique challenge for game reviewers: how do you keep a review relevant and accurate when the subject it critiques is a moving target? The initial score and analysis might no longer reflect the current state of the game, potentially misleading readers and undermining a publication’s credibility.

The Dynamic Nature of Modern Gaming

Gone are the days when a game was a static product upon release. Today, most titles, especially live-service games or those with ambitious post-launch roadmaps, are continually refined and expanded. Major patches can fix bugs, rebalance gameplay, add new features, or even overhaul core mechanics. DLC, on the other hand, can introduce hours of new content, entirely new story arcs, or fundamental gameplay additions that redefine the original experience.

For a reviewer, the dilemma is clear: a review published at launch, while accurate for its time, risks becoming obsolete. Ignoring these updates can lead to readers making purchasing decisions based on outdated information, while constantly re-reviewing every single patch can be an unsustainable endeavor.

Strategies for Updating Game Reviews

There are several approaches publications and individual reviewers can take to address the challenge of post-launch updates. The chosen method often depends on the scope of the changes and the resources available.

1. Updating the Original Review

For significant patches that alter the core experience or for smaller, impactful DLC, amending the original review is a common and often preferred method. This approach ensures all relevant information is in one place, making it easy for readers to find a comprehensive take on the game.

• Clearly Delineate Changes: Implement a dedicated section at the beginning or end of the review detailing updates. This section should clearly state the date of the update, what changes were made (e.g., specific patches, DLC names), and how they impact the original score or critique.
• Revised Score (with transparency): If the changes are substantial enough to warrant a score change, this should be done with utmost transparency. Explain the reasoning behind the new score, referencing specific improvements or regressions. Some publications maintain the original score but add a ‘revisited’ score.
• Integrate New Information: Subtly weave new observations or analyses into the relevant sections of the original review, but always make it clear what information pertains to the post-launch state versus the launch state.

2. Publishing a Companion Piece or Re-Review

When DLC or patches introduce content so extensive that they fundamentally change or expand the game to a degree that an updated section within the original review wouldn’t suffice, a separate article is often appropriate. This is particularly true for large expansions that are almost games unto themselves.

• Dedicated DLC Review: For significant expansions, a standalone review that treats the DLC as its own product, while referencing the base game’s quality, is an excellent approach. This allows for a deeper dive into the new content without cluttering the original review.
• ‘Revisited’ or ‘Re-review’ Articles: For games that have undergone massive overhauls post-launch, a completely new review, often titled ‘Revisited’ or ‘Re-review’, can provide a fresh perspective. These articles typically acknowledge the original review and explain why a complete re-evaluation was necessary, offering a new score for the current version of the game.

Key Considerations for Reviewers

Regardless of the method chosen, several best practices ensure fairness, accuracy, and reader trust:

• Transparency is Paramount: Always clearly state when a review has been updated, what specifically was changed, and on what date. This builds trust with your audience.
• Time Investment: Reviewing new content or reassessing a patched game requires new playtime. Do not update a review based solely on patch notes; experience the changes firsthand.
• Contextualize Changes: Explain why a change is significant. Is a new class game-breaking? Does a patch fix a previously critical bug?
• Reader Feedback: Pay attention to community discussions. While not the sole arbiter, player sentiment can highlight areas that warrant a closer look.

The Role of DLC and Expansions

DLC often exists on a spectrum from minor cosmetic additions to vast, story-driven expansions. Reviewers must discern which type of DLC warrants significant attention. Small, non-impactful DLC may only warrant a mention in a broader ‘year-in-review’ style article, whereas a large expansion like ‘The Witcher 3: Blood and Wine’ clearly deserves its own comprehensive review.

When reviewing DLC, it’s crucial to evaluate it both as a standalone experience and how it integrates with, or improves upon, the base game. Is the new content worth the price of admission for existing fans? Does it make the overall package more appealing to new players?

Ethical Obligations and Reader Trust

Ultimately, the goal of updating reviews is to provide the most accurate and helpful information possible to readers. A reviewer’s ethical obligation extends beyond the initial launch, requiring a commitment to revisiting and re-evaluating games as they evolve. By transparently and thoughtfully addressing post-launch changes, reviewers can maintain their credibility and foster a deeper level of trust with their audience, ensuring that their work remains a valuable resource in the dynamic world of gaming.