Games have evolved since the use of patches and DLC, little mistakes from screen-tearing to controls have been patched. Games like Fallout, Halo, even Lair have changed due to patches which would otherwise keep games from being peak. There are always dry months in which games are scarce, there is little to report, so why not dedicate that time to re-reviewing games which have had major patches?
Lair came out August 31st, 2007 for North America to less than stellar reviews. As a matter-of-fact it was poorly received for the control scheme and use of the Sixaxis; in April 2008 a patch was released which allowed analog stick control and easier play due to it. Yet the game, which received a major patch, was never re-reviewed. Ask many who plays Lair today and it is a rather impressive game, age or not, and fun. They would likely have disagreed with their statement today as when the game was released. So why not a re-review?
Games have evolved, reviews have not. They are brought out quickly after the game is released, and though it could be argued that games SHOULD be finished when they're released, the fact is that gaming as a whole has evolved to allow us to experience games differently.
In another scenario; Gran Turismo 5. There have been claims that new patches will add more Premium support for cars and better damage, some of the gripes of the initial reviews. Will GT5 be reviewed with this in mind? Doubtful. Though video game enthusiasts enjoy games with or without a positive review (fact is I myself have had fun with poorly reviewed games), but to those who don't want to buy games when they release and wait for patches and DLC which could add or improve games, a re-review would help those games which have become better due to support. Burnout Paradise comes to mind, with a terrific developer who have supported the game with free support, and the game was rarely re-reviewed.
I believe it has become time to re-review older, patched games, so that those who wait can know what to expect from the patches that come out. Larger sites like IGN (whether or not you believe them relevant to your purchases) would certainly have the manpower and resources to pop in the game in question and play for a few hours to see the new fixes. Although some games, no matter how many glitches they have, are high received (such as Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas), games like those should also be re-reviewed.
But this begs many questions: Will the game be allowed a higher score or a new score altogether? For many highly reviewed games, it's hard to award a 9.5 game a 10 due to patches, but that's why I have The Escapist. What do you think as far as this topic?
TL;DR Should games be re-reviewed, regardless of relevancy of review scores to you.
Lair came out August 31st, 2007 for North America to less than stellar reviews. As a matter-of-fact it was poorly received for the control scheme and use of the Sixaxis; in April 2008 a patch was released which allowed analog stick control and easier play due to it. Yet the game, which received a major patch, was never re-reviewed. Ask many who plays Lair today and it is a rather impressive game, age or not, and fun. They would likely have disagreed with their statement today as when the game was released. So why not a re-review?
Games have evolved, reviews have not. They are brought out quickly after the game is released, and though it could be argued that games SHOULD be finished when they're released, the fact is that gaming as a whole has evolved to allow us to experience games differently.
In another scenario; Gran Turismo 5. There have been claims that new patches will add more Premium support for cars and better damage, some of the gripes of the initial reviews. Will GT5 be reviewed with this in mind? Doubtful. Though video game enthusiasts enjoy games with or without a positive review (fact is I myself have had fun with poorly reviewed games), but to those who don't want to buy games when they release and wait for patches and DLC which could add or improve games, a re-review would help those games which have become better due to support. Burnout Paradise comes to mind, with a terrific developer who have supported the game with free support, and the game was rarely re-reviewed.
I believe it has become time to re-review older, patched games, so that those who wait can know what to expect from the patches that come out. Larger sites like IGN (whether or not you believe them relevant to your purchases) would certainly have the manpower and resources to pop in the game in question and play for a few hours to see the new fixes. Although some games, no matter how many glitches they have, are high received (such as Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas), games like those should also be re-reviewed.
But this begs many questions: Will the game be allowed a higher score or a new score altogether? For many highly reviewed games, it's hard to award a 9.5 game a 10 due to patches, but that's why I have The Escapist. What do you think as far as this topic?
TL;DR Should games be re-reviewed, regardless of relevancy of review scores to you.
