When reviewing live service games, how do we fairly update scores after major patches?

The Ever-Evolving Landscape of Live Service Games

Live service games have become a dominant force in the video game industry, offering ongoing content, seasonal updates, and continuous developer support. Unlike traditional, static releases, these titles are designed to evolve significantly over their lifespan, often transforming dramatically from their launch state. This inherent fluidity poses a critical challenge for game reviewers: how do we fairly evaluate and, more importantly, re-evaluate these games after major patches or content expansions?

An initial review score, no matter how thorough, can quickly become outdated, failing to reflect a game that has been overhauled, improved, or, in some cases, deteriorated. Maintaining reader trust and providing accurate purchasing advice necessitates a robust policy for score updates, but the ‘best’ approach is far from straightforward.

The Dilemma of Static Scores in a Dynamic World

The traditional review model typically assigns a score based on a game’s state at launch. For a single-player, narrative-driven title, this works well. However, for a live service game, a launch review might only capture a fraction of its potential or problems. A game might launch with technical issues, lack of content, or poor balance, earning a low score, only to become a critically acclaimed experience a year later after multiple significant updates. Conversely, a well-received launch title could slowly decline due to questionable updates or a shift in developer focus.

Leaving the original score untouched creates a misleading historical record, potentially deterring new players from experiencing a genuinely improved game, or conversely, luring them into a title that has since fallen from grace. The core question, then, is not if scores should be updated, but how to do so in a manner that is transparent, consistent, and fair to both the developers and the audience.

Approaches to Updating Review Scores

Various methodologies have emerged within the industry, each with its own merits and drawbacks:

1. The Full Re-review: A Fresh Start

One approach is to treat a major patch as if it were a new release, conducting a complete re-review and assigning an entirely new score. This allows for a comprehensive assessment of the game’s current state, factoring in all changes, additions, and improvements. It provides the clearest snapshot of what a player can expect today.

• Pros: Most accurate representation of the game’s current quality; provides a clear, updated verdict.
• Cons: Extremely resource-intensive for review outlets; can be confusing for readers to track multiple scores for the “same” game; potentially devalues the original review.

2. The “Living Score” or Dynamic Review: Constant Evolution

Some publications experiment with a “living score” model, where the review and its score are continuously updated as new content or major patches roll out. The original review acts as a base, with subsequent updates detailing changes and incrementally adjusting the score. The review date would reflect the last significant update.

• Pros: Always reflects the game’s most current state; keeps content fresh and relevant.
• Cons: Difficult to maintain consistency and objectivity over long periods; requires significant ongoing commitment from reviewers; readers might not understand the fluidity of the score.

3. Score Adjustment with Addendums: Contextual Updates

Perhaps the most common approach involves maintaining the original review and score but adding an “addendum” or “update” section. This addendum details the major changes introduced by a patch and explains whether these changes warrant an adjustment to the original score, either up or down. The original score is then explicitly changed, with the rationale provided.

• Pros: Preserves the historical context of the initial review; provides clear justification for score changes; less resource-intensive than a full re-review.
• Cons: The original review text might not fully align with the updated score without substantial edits; some fundamental changes might be too significant for a mere addendum.

4. Separate Patch Reviews / Retrospectives: Keeping Records Separate

Another method is to keep the original review and score entirely static, treating it as a historical document of the game at launch. Instead of altering the original, separate “patch reviews,” “update impressions,” or “retrospectives” are published. These new articles focus solely on the changes and their impact, without directly altering the initial score.

• Pros: Maintains the integrity of the original review; clearly documents the evolution of the game over time; less controversial regarding score changes.
• Cons: The original, potentially outdated score remains visible and can be misleading to new players; requires readers to seek out multiple pieces of content for a full picture.

Key Principles for Fair Updates

Regardless of the chosen methodology, several core principles are essential for maintaining fairness and reader trust:

• Transparency: Clearly communicate the review policy for live service games. Explain to readers how and why scores might change.
• Consistency: Apply the chosen methodology consistently across all live service titles.
• Clear Communication: When a score is updated, explain in detail what warranted the change and what specifically has improved or worsened.
• Context: Always link back to the original review and provide enough context for readers to understand the game’s journey.
• Timeliness: While not every small patch warrants a score update, major content drops or fundamental overhauls should be addressed in a reasonable timeframe.

Conclusion: The Path Forward for Evolving Games

There is no universally perfect solution for updating live service game scores after major patches. Each method presents its own set of advantages and challenges for both the review publication and its audience. However, the common thread among all successful approaches is a commitment to transparency, clear communication, and a dedication to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information possible. As live service games continue to dominate the industry, review outlets must adapt their methodologies to reflect the dynamic nature of these titles, ensuring that their evaluations remain relevant, fair, and trustworthy in an ever-evolving gaming landscape.