Strategy for reviewing evolving live service games: initial score, ongoing update, or re-review?

The Perplexing Nature of Live Service Game Reviews

Live service games have fundamentally reshaped the landscape of video game releases and, consequently, the art of game criticism. Unlike traditional, static titles that launch as a complete package, live service games like Destiny, Final Fantasy XIV, No Man’s Sky, or Cyberpunk 2077 (post-launch) are designed to evolve over months and even years through continuous updates, expansions, and community feedback. This dynamic model poses a significant dilemma for reviewers: how do you accurately assess a moving target? The core question revolves around three primary approaches: an initial score reflecting the launch state, ongoing updates to an existing review, or a complete re-review.

The Initial Score: A Snapshot in Time

The traditional method of game review involves playing a near-final build and issuing a definitive score or verdict shortly after launch. For live service games, this means assessing the game as it exists on day one, including its core mechanics, content, stability, and initial promise. This approach has its merits: it’s timely, provides immediate consumer guidance, and captures the all-important first impression that often dictates a game’s early success.

However, an initial score can quickly become obsolete. A game lauded for its robust launch content might become stale without updates, or a title lambasted for technical issues and a lack of features might transform into a masterpiece years down the line. Relying solely on an initial score can be misleading, failing to represent the game players experience months later, which ultimately undermines the purpose of a review as a guide.

Ongoing Updates: The Living Review

An alternative strategy involves publishing an initial review but then continually updating it as the game evolves. This might take the form of appended sections detailing major patches, changes to the meta, or the addition of new content. Some publications even implement a “living score” that can fluctuate based on significant updates, aiming to keep the review perpetually relevant to the game’s current state.

The strength of this approach lies in its continuous relevance. Readers can return to a single source to understand how a game has changed and whether it’s worth investing their time and money now. The challenges, however, are considerable. It demands significant ongoing resources from reviewers, tracking every patch and evaluating its impact. Furthermore, a fluctuating score can be confusing for readers who might not revisit the review frequently, or who simply want a definitive answer without digging through change logs.

The Full Re-Review: A Clean Slate

Reserved for games that undergo truly transformative changes, a complete re-review offers a fresh perspective, essentially treating the updated game as a new release. This is typically warranted when a game’s core loop, content offering, or underlying systems are so drastically altered that the original review no longer bears any resemblance to the current experience. Examples include games that have recovered from disastrous launches, like No Man’s Sky with its numerous content updates, or those that have gone through massive overhauls, such as Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn.

The benefit here is clarity: a brand-new review provides an unencumbered assessment of the game as it stands, free from the baggage of its past. The drawbacks are practical and philosophical. It’s incredibly resource-intensive, requiring a reviewer to essentially re-learn and re-evaluate an entire game. It also raises questions about the validity of the original review and can lead to reader fatigue if re-reviews become too frequent.

Towards a Hybrid and Transparent Strategy

Given the complexities, a multi-faceted approach often proves most effective. Reviewers could adopt a strategy that combines elements of all three methods, prioritizing transparency and reader guidance:

• Initial Review with Clear Caveats: Publish a comprehensive launch review, clearly stating that the assessment reflects the game at release and is subject to change. Provide a score but emphasize its temporal nature.
• Regular Update Notes/Appendices: For significant patches or content drops, add concise updates to the original review, detailing major changes and their impact. This keeps the initial review current without rewriting it.
• Strategic Re-Reviews: Reserve full re-reviews for truly epoch-making transformations. This should be a rare event, signifying a complete rebirth of the game, justifying the extensive effort and resetting reader expectations.

Crucially, publications must be transparent with their audience about their review philosophy for live service games. Educating readers on how and why reviews are updated (or not) fosters trust and helps manage expectations in an ever-evolving gaming landscape.

Conclusion: Adapting to the Evolving Medium

There is no one-size-fits-all answer to reviewing live service games. The best strategy is one that acknowledges the unique nature of these titles, balances timely information with long-term relevance, and remains transparent with its audience. As games continue to evolve beyond traditional release models, so too must the methodologies of those tasked with evaluating them, ensuring that critical analysis remains a valuable resource for players navigating dynamic digital worlds.