What’s the best strategy to update evergreen game reviews for patches/DLC?

The Evergreen Review Dilemma

In the fast-evolving world of video games, a ‘definitive’ review can quickly become outdated. Games are no longer static products; they are living services, frequently receiving patches that fix bugs, rebalance mechanics, and add new content, alongside substantial paid DLC that expands narratives and introduces new gameplay loops. For publications that host evergreen game reviews – articles intended to remain relevant and valuable over time – this presents a significant challenge. How do you ensure your review remains accurate and useful for readers years after its initial publication, without rewriting history or creating a confusing archive?

Strategy 1: Appending Updates

One common and often effective strategy is to append updates to the original review. This involves adding new sections or ‘editor’s notes’ at the beginning or end of the article, specifically addressing changes introduced by patches or DLC. Each update should be clearly timestamped and detail what has changed, its impact on the game, and whether it alters the original review’s conclusions or score. This method preserves the historical context of the initial review, allowing readers to see how the game evolved over time.

Pros:

• Maintains the original review as a historical document.
• Easy to implement and less resource-intensive than full revisions.
• Clear transparency for readers about changes.

Cons:

• Can make the review long and fragmented if many updates occur.
• The core of the review might become less representative of the current game experience.
• New readers might have to sift through old information.

Strategy 2: Revising the Original Review

A more intensive approach is to directly revise the original review, integrating the changes from patches and DLC into the body of the article. This means updating paragraphs, re-evaluating game mechanics, and potentially altering the overall score. When choosing this strategy, it is crucial to clearly mark or footnote sections that have been updated and to include a prominent changelog or editor’s note explaining what was revised and why. Transparency is key to maintaining reader trust.

Pros:

• The review always reflects the most current version of the game.
• Offers a more cohesive and singular perspective for new readers.
• Can provide a fresh, relevant perspective on the game’s current state.

Cons:

• High effort, potentially requiring significant rewrite.
• Can obscure the game’s initial reception or struggles.
• Risk of ‘rewriting history’ if changes aren’t clearly documented.

Strategy 3: Companion Reviews or Re-Reviews

For significant expansions or transformative patches, creating an entirely new ‘companion review’ or a ‘re-review’ might be the best option. A companion review focuses solely on the DLC or major update, assessing its impact and value independently while referencing the original game. A re-review, on the other hand, is a completely new article that re-evaluates the entire game package (base game + all major updates/DLC) from a fresh perspective, often with a new score. The original review should then be clearly linked and possibly archived, but not removed.

Pros:

• Provides a clean slate for significant changes.
• Allows for new perspectives and a dedicated focus on new content.
• Original review remains intact for historical context.

Cons:

• Can lead to review proliferation and reader confusion about which review is ‘the’ definitive one.
• Requires significant editorial resources for new content.
• SEO challenges if not managed properly.

Maintaining Transparency and Trust

Regardless of the strategy chosen, transparency is paramount. Readers rely on reviews for honest, accurate information. Any updates, revisions, or new reviews should clearly communicate:

• What changed: Specific patches, DLC, or re-evaluations.
• When it changed: Clear timestamps for all updates.
• Why it changed: Explanation for score adjustments or altered conclusions.
• The reviewer’s perspective: If a new reviewer took over, acknowledge it.

A dedicated ‘Update Log’ or ‘Revision History’ section is a best practice for any evergreen review strategy.

Hybrid Approach: The Best of Both Worlds

The optimal strategy often involves a hybrid approach. For minor patches and bug fixes, appending small updates to the original review might suffice. For substantial content updates or minor DLC that doesn’t fundamentally alter the game, a light revision of the existing text with a clear changelog could be appropriate. However, for massive expansions or transformative updates that redefine the game experience, a dedicated companion review or a full re-review offers the clarity and depth required. This flexible approach allows publications to tailor their response to the scope of the update, ensuring reviews remain relevant and trusted resources for the gaming community.