How should our gaming review scores adapt for post-launch game updates/DLC?
The Shifting Sands of Game Reviews
The landscape of video game development and consumption has undergone a profound transformation. What was once a largely static product, launched and then perhaps patched once or twice, has evolved into a dynamic, ever-changing entity. Modern games, especially those branded as “live service” or simply ambitious titles, routinely receive significant post-launch updates, bug fixes, balance adjustments, and substantial downloadable content (DLC). This constant evolution presents a fundamental challenge to traditional game review scores, which are typically a snapshot in time. How can a single, immutable score accurately reflect a game that might be vastly different six months, a year, or even several years after its initial release?
The Dilemma of the Initial Score
Historically, a game review provided a definitive judgment on a finished product. Reviewers played the game, assessed its various facets – gameplay, graphics, sound, story, performance – and assigned a score. This score then served as a critical benchmark for consumers and often impacted sales and developer reputation for years to come. However, this model falters spectacularly in the face of modern development practices. A game launched in a buggy, incomplete state might justly receive a low score, only to be meticulously refined and expanded into a masterpiece over time. Conversely, a highly praised launch title might suffer from a lack of post-launch support or poorly executed DLC, diminishing its initial appeal. The current system often fails to acknowledge these post-release trajectories, leaving consumers with outdated information and developers feeling misrepresented.
Consider the infamous examples: games that launched broken (e.g., No Man’s Sky, Cyberpunk 2077) but later redeemed themselves, or titles that started strong but faltered (e.g., Anthem, some initial iterations of Destiny 2). Their initial review scores, while accurate at launch, do not tell the full story of their lifecycle. This gap in accurate representation is what our review systems must address.
Proposed Adaptations for Review Scores
1. Re-reviews or Updated Review Sections
The most straightforward approach is to conduct full re-reviews for significant updates or major DLC releases. This means assigning a new, distinct score or appending an “updated score” section to the original review. This provides a fresh perspective and a new numerical evaluation based on the game’s current state. The challenge here is the sheer volume of work involved; with dozens of major releases annually and continuous updates, the resources required for constant re-evaluation would be immense for review outlets.
2. Dynamic or Live Scoring
Some publications have experimented with dynamic scores that can fluctuate based on ongoing updates. This could involve a review system where scores are periodically reassessed by the original reviewer or a team, with a clear log of changes and reasoning. While conceptually appealing, ensuring consistency and transparency across a multitude of titles, and explaining the fluidity of the score to readers, poses significant practical hurdles.
3. DLC-Specific Reviews and “Expansions”
For substantial DLC that fundamentally alters the game, a separate, standalone review is often appropriate. This keeps the core game’s initial review intact while providing an evaluation of the new content. However, this doesn’t address smaller, but still impactful, patches or free content updates that improve the base game without being a full expansion.
4. Versioning and “Metascores”
Another option is to explicitly version review scores (e.g., “Game X v1.0 Score: 7/10,” “Game X v2.0 Score: 8.5/10”). This provides clarity on what state of the game the score refers to. Aggregators like Metacritic could also evolve to present a “current average score” alongside a “launch average score,” reflecting ongoing critical consensus. This requires a shift in how review scores are not just generated but also presented and consumed.
Challenges and the Path Forward
Implementing any of these solutions isn’t without its difficulties. The primary concerns include the increased workload for review teams, maintaining editorial consistency across different reviewers and titles, and avoiding reader confusion over multiple scores or fluctuating numbers. Furthermore, determining what constitutes a “significant enough” update to warrant a re-evaluation is subjective and requires clear guidelines.
Ultimately, the goal is to provide consumers with the most accurate and up-to-date information possible. While the traditional, static review still holds value for a game’s launch state, the industry’s evolution demands a more flexible and adaptive approach. A hybrid model, perhaps combining initial reviews with periodic update sections, standalone DLC reviews, and clear versioning for major overhauls, might be the most pragmatic solution. This would allow review scores to genuinely reflect the living, breathing nature of modern video games, serving both players and developers more effectively.
