AndiC.uk

In the past 10 years or so, video games have been able to change after their initial release by updates they can receive via the Internet. This means that games are realistically no longer static, or a fixed item, like a movie or book is. This is where reviews work well - the media item in question doesn't change after its launch. Games used to be exactly like this, back in the PS2 and original Xbox era, stretching right back to the dawn of console games. However, with an Internet connection that is much more reliable now across the globe, game developers and publishers are now relying on this technology to not only patch their games, but also add new content at a later date that can completely change the game. This is why video game reviews are becoming more irrelevant and something has to change.

There are loads of examples to discuss but one of the biggest has to be No Man's Sky. Obviously it's well documented on how this game generated so much hype before release (including myself), and then failed to deliver on so many planned features post release. This lead to the game receiving very middle-of-the-road review scores, no more than 5 and 6 out of 10.

However developer Hello Games listened, and duly provided free updates to the game. Fixing bugs and adding loads of new content. There have been 3 major updates in the first 12 months of its release. The highlights of these being new game modes, a base building system, planetary vehicles, and 30 hours of new story content.

But despite these excellent updates to the game (which I have played), I've not seen a single media outlet re-review the game at all. The game runs much better than at launch, there are more activities to do, and more ways to explore planets. It simply deserves a higher review score. For anyone looking up this game now, they will most likely see the original review and score associated with it. The score is effectively engraved into the game for the rest of time.

A similar example is Need for Speed (the one from 2015 where this is literally the title). This received very average 6 out of 10 review scores on the whole at launch, but also received major updates over the next 6 months. Competitive multiplayer lobbies being perhaps the biggest new feature. But they also added the ability to share your car wraps with the community. A fantastic update for players without the best design skills (like me). It's another game I've not seen re-reviewed at all, and would definitely be scored higher.

YouTuber BlackPanthaa, one of the biggest Need for Speed fans I know, thinks that Need for Speed Payback will be in a very similar scenario.

A big reason behind why game reviews are seemingly becoming more irrelevant is because of an increasing trend of 'games as a service'. More and more console games are following the model of PC MMO games which can grab a gamer's attention for multiple years due to the regular updates they receive. League of Legends and DOTA2 being the obvious examples.

The game development cost of this model is spread over a longer time span and the revenue can continue to pour in as the player base grows. With potential micro-transactions increasing the money flow further. It's clear to see big video game publishers would want to take this route.

The first real console game to take this approach was Destiny. Originally released in September 2014. It was criticised for it's waffling story and it’s lack of content at launch, giving it largely a 6 or 7 out of 10 score. However it was widespread knowledge that this was not the finished game. All reviews pointed out there would be a series of big DLC updates ('expansions' even, to copy the PC model even further) throughout 2014 and 2015 to flesh out the game's life. With each DLC set to cost around £15. A true 'game as service' unlike No Man's Sky and Need for Speed explained earlier.

As each DLC for Destiny had a known release date and price tag, many media outlets reviewed each expansion, giving them a score as well. With the general trend of a more positive outlook for the game as a whole. Largely due to the negative point of 'a lack of content' now becoming obsolete, and the vast majority of previous bugs patched.

This seems to apply for any console game due to receive any paid DLC. This is not limited to 'games as a service'. Look at the very recently released DLC for Horizon Zero Dawn. A full-on single player game with only one piece of add-on content (that we know of). Because this was given an official title "The Frozen Wilds", a release date, and most importantly a price, everyone gives it a new review. If this had been a free update to the game, I highly doubt it would have been reviewed by as many media outlets, if it all.

'Complete' or 'Game of the Year' editions of games also sometimes receive new reviews, if they have all DLC bundled in with the game. The common theme again is a price associated with the product.

So it appears as though this is where we currently stand regarding video game reviews. Big, free updates to games, even when they are branded and given some marketing (as they were with No Man's Sky), they will not be given any sort of official review. Certainly no new score associated with the game. On the other hand, if a game announces planned DLC with a price tag, media outlets will nearly always give it a separate review.

The only real differing factor I can see is the cost associated with the game update - and I can see why. The media outlet's original, primary role is to inform readers/listeners/watchers if they should buy the game's DLC. That's fair enough, but in the interest of the video games industry as a whole, I highly believe major updates to games have to be represented. Especially when the easiest way to compare games is via its Metacritic score.

Games with higher scores are more likely to be bought - across any generation. This leads to more sales and revenue in the long term, for the retailer, the publisher, and the developer too depending on where the game is sold. At the very least these games should receive a much better reception in general, and it can boost the profile of individual developers who worked on the game. It’s effectively the payoff for the hard work of patching the game and adding new features after its release, for free.

One game that was re-reviewed this year after its release was Prey. The game launched with some horrendous game breaking bugs, especially on PC, that made it almost impossible to complete the main story. When these issues were patched within a week of its release, media outlets like IGN re-reviewed the game, doubling its score from a 4 to an 8 out of 10. The game was fundamentally great, just badly let down by serious bugs at launch.

It seems this is the only scenario to warrant a game being re-reviewed. It’s also the only real example I know of where a game was re-scored without paid DLC dropping, or a special edition launching.

I could list several games that I believe should be re-reviewed due to the substantial free updates they've received, and I'm not only talking about mediocre games that have improved to become good games. Two examples of great games that have pushed forward to become outstanding success stories are Rocket League and Overwatch. I know they don't need any help selling more copies, but one could argue that both games are approaching perfection in their respective genres. At the end of the day, shouldn't they be given scores that match the latest version of the game?

There are two more recently released games that I'm convinced will be given the same treatment as No Man's Sky and Need for Speed i.e. not be re-reviewed when we know there are big content updates coming, for free.

Back at E3 this year, EA announced that Star Wars Battlefront II would not be getting a season pass - a way to buy all upcoming paid DLC for one price when the game launches. This is because it will have no paid DLC. All of the expansions will be free to all players who own a copy of the game. A fantastic decision by EA (although with the backlash on the loot box system this now seems forgotten).

It will be very intriguing to see if any media outlet does re-review the game in line with it's free expansion updates. Where developer DICE has the chance to patch any of the existing game's flaws too, such as the convoluted random rewards system. If it were to be re-reviewed I can almost guarantee that Battlefront II would be better received, and more gamers should buy the game.

Gran Turismo Sport is the other game. It received very mediocre review scores on the whole, largely because so much content is missing that we normally expect in a GT game. However this tweet from PlayStation shows multiple updates are coming for the game, including the new GT League mode.

GT Sport surprising launched with no real single player career mode (GT mode in previous titles). This was one of the reasons why it scored poorly and a big reason why I didn't buy the game. This is such a significant update, once again I feel it has to be re-reviewed by media outlets.

One other point to raise here is the rise of games becoming available through 'early access'. Games that haven't received a full official release yet, but are available to download and play early. Players may experience game-breaking bugs, but get to play the game early. For the developer it's like an extended beta period, to fully test the game's multiplayer servers for example.

With the massive success of Player Unknown’s Battlegrounds (PUBG) this year, still only available via 'early access', this is also a case of why game reviews are becoming irrelevant. The game has been available to play since March this year, and has now amassed a player base of over 20 million players! Yet the game still has not had an official release yet. This means PUBG remains highly unreviewed because that version 1.0 is yet to be released.

If PUBG did officially launch in March, it would have been reviewed, and it would've been very interesting to see what the reviews would say. I highly imagine there would be negative comments about bugs in the game, and possibly a lack of content as there is only one map available to play. Therefore, maybe Player Unknown himself (Brendan Greene the lead developer) has played this perfectly for the ultimate success of a game. In it's current state the game is constantly receiving updates and new content, just like a 'game as service', but doesn't have any of the negative feedback that can stem from a game's initial review.

This is also interesting because as we’re approaching the end of the year, many media outlets are compiling their game of the year nominees. Some people strongly suggest that PUBG should be a contender, yet if it hasn't been officially reviewed, how can it easily be compared to the other nominees? PUBG’s debut on consoles is the 12th December for Xbox One, so all reviews should go live around then.

That concludes my thoughts on why game reviews are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Video games are a dynamic form of media, they are constantly changing, therefore reviews need to be updated in line with the content they are talking about.

In my ideal world, media outlets should re-review games after every major update. Or it's at least up to the discretion of the company if they feel the game has changed significantly to warrant a new review score. This will ultimately reflect the game better. Games tend to improve over time, this can prompt gamers who read reviews to re-consider buying games, and the developers can benefit from a better score associated with the game they worked on.

Media outlets could post a history of their scores to see a game's ups and downs over it's lifespan. Only the latest score should be treated as the Metacritic score. This is what I feel has to change with video game reviews. The current system just isn't working, and it isn't fair to those developers who drastically improve their game.

To my amazement, IGN actually decided to re-review Rocket League on 6th December! After over 2 years, they realised their review didn't match the latest version of the game. Although a potential big reason for this is because of the newly released Nintendo Switch version. Nevertheless it went up for all platforms from an 8.0 to a 9.3. A much better representation of the current game today.

Game Reviews are Becoming More Irrelevant than ever