Should we update game reviews for major post-launch patches/DLC? If so, how?

Modern video games are dynamic entities, constantly evolving through patches, expansions, and community feedback. This fluidity poses a significant challenge to the traditional concept of a static review, written and published at launch. The question isn’t just whether reviews should be updated, but how we can effectively reflect a game’s ongoing journey without losing its initial context.

The Case for Updating Reviews

Many games launch in a state far from their final form. Day-one patches can fix critical bugs, but major post-launch updates often introduce significant new content, rebalance core mechanics, or even overhaul entire systems. Think of titles like No Man’s Sky, which transformed from a heavily criticized release into a beloved space exploration epic, or Cyberpunk 2077, which received numerous performance and content improvements after a rocky start. An initial review, however accurate at launch, quickly becomes a historical artifact rather than a useful purchasing guide for future players.

Failing to update reviews means that potential buyers searching for current information might be misled by outdated assessments, especially if they’re considering a game years after its release. Review scores, in particular, can be particularly misleading if they don’t reflect the current player experience.

The Challenges of Continuous Reviewing

While the benefits of updating seem clear, the practicalities are complex. First, there’s the issue of resources. Game journalists and publications already operate under tight deadlines. Consistently re-evaluating and rewriting reviews for dozens, if not hundreds, of games would be an immense undertaking. Second, where do you draw the line? Should every minor patch warrant an update, or only major expansions? This ambiguity can lead to inconsistency across different publications.

Furthermore, an original review serves as a snapshot of a game’s initial state, which holds historical value. Completely replacing it erases that context, making it harder to track a game’s development trajectory or understand its journey from launch to maturity. Some argue that the original review captures the developer’s initial vision and execution, which is a valid part of its critical history.

Methods for Evolving Reviews

1. Appendices and Addendums

One widely adopted approach is to keep the original review intact but append an “Addendum” or “Update” section. This section details the changes introduced by major patches or DLC, discusses their impact on the gameplay experience, and may include an updated score or a re-evaluation of specific aspects. This method preserves the historical context while providing current information.

2. Dedicated Re-reviews

For games that undergo truly transformative changes, a full “Re-review” might be warranted. This is often seen for “definitive editions” or significant expansions that fundamentally alter the core game (e.g., Destiny 2’s major annual expansions). A re-review acknowledges that the game has become a substantially different product, deserving a fresh, comprehensive assessment. It should clearly state that it’s a re-review and link back to the original.

3. Live/Evolving Review Sections

A more ambitious, though resource-intensive, model involves creating dedicated “live review” sections on publication websites. These sections could be continuously updated with bullet points or short paragraphs detailing significant changes, their impact, and even community sentiment. While not a full article rewrite, it offers a dynamic resource for players seeking the latest information. This would require robust content management systems and dedicated editorial oversight.

4. Clear Labeling and Versioning

Regardless of the method chosen, transparent labeling is paramount. Every review, whether original or updated, should clearly state the version of the game it covers, the date of publication/update, and a link to any previous or subsequent assessments. This allows readers to easily understand the context of the review they are reading.

Conclusion

The imperative to update game reviews for major post-launch content is growing stronger as games continue to evolve long after release. While challenges exist regarding resources and historical context, a blended approach that incorporates clear addendums for minor changes, dedicated re-reviews for transformative updates, and transparent versioning offers the most pragmatic solution. Ultimately, the goal of game journalism is to provide accurate, relevant information to players, and in an era of ever-changing games, our review methodologies must adapt to meet that need.