A good example of this would have been Outpost. I never reviewed this one, but I’ve played it, and when it shipped it was missing nearly half of the features in the manual. This was a combination of two factors: First, manuals have to be sent to print before the game is actually ready for release, so they’re ready to ship. That’s the reason why you sometimes see mistakes in the manual… something changed after the manual was sent to the printers, but before the game shipped. Second, they lost their lead programmer and management basically said “take what you’ve got, get it working, and ship it.” Eventually Sierra came out with patch 1.5, which added some (but not all) of the missing features to the game.

Now, assuming I *had* reviewed Outpost, and Sierra asked me to review it again with the 1.5 patch installed, I would’ve refused. “Nope… too little, too late. I’ve already reviewed the game I received. I’m not going to waste my time reviewing the game it should have been.”

These days, I’m starting to come around to the “second pass” point of view. Here’s the quid pro quo… I would only consider second pass reviews *if* the DLC adds a significant amount of content or alters gameplay in a significant way. I think we can all agree that you wouldn’t do a second pass of a game just because they added some new costumes. Adding another 10-20 hours of play, however… well, that’s different. But unless the reviewer kept his saved games, or has continued to actively play the MMO, or whatever, his avatar may not be experienced enough to access the new content; and that’s where you run into the problems Jason mentioned. There’s simply no way to guarantee your “second pass” would be first AND be in depth, because another reviewer that DID keep his saved games, or continued to actively play the MMO, could get to the new content first.

On the one hand, some games, and MMOs especially, are so dynamic in terms of new content and changes that they are practically a different animal within six months. We would all agree on that.

On the other hand, this industry thrives on hype. And hype isn’t just about talking up a game. It’s also about being first with a news scoop or first with something neat. So, you can’t be first AND be in depth AND see if a game ages well.

For example, when a game first launches, much of the time you get the sense of “This is great! It’s new and shiny and wonderful!” But play it a month or two more and suddenly the shine is off and you start seeing the real flaws in the game which have yet to be addressed. Or, a patch has been released which dramatically alters gameplay.

I don’t know about other folks, but generally speaking when I buy a game, it’s gonna be one I intend to play for a while. I take my time on single player games, frequently, because my gaming time is limited, and split between games usually. Multiplayer games are a different kettle of fish, in that they typically don’t reveal all that’s good or bad right out of the gate. It takes time playing with stuff (particularly games with obnoxious “unlock” systems) to really see that, for example, the USAS-12 plus 12G frags and an IRNV is a clearly broken unbeatable combo in BF3….until it got patched.

So, I’d say it might be worthwhile to institute a new column. Something like “One/Two Month(s) Later…” This might not work so well with review schedules, since that’d require longer-term gameplay (which might be difficult if you’ve got a deadline for that other review), but seeing as how you guys do admit to playing games in the meantime, maybe have folks write their post-shiny-phase impressions of the game.

Frankly, for all the breathlessly excited and positive reviews I see on other sites about the latest AAA title to come out that same day, after playing a lot of them for a month or so, I can’t help but wonder what those reviewers would say (well, if they weren’t shills, that is…) if they wrote another review after the fact.

Particularly in a changing gaming industry chock full of microtransactions, ongoing DLC packs, patches, etc., perhaps the gaming review industry needs to adapt to a more longitudinal approach to reviews. “Here’s my Day-0 review. And here’s my Day-60 review.” We also often complain about company support (or lack thereof) with games, so given that you’re almost buying a SERVICE now rather than just a PRODUCT, maybe some reviews of how well a game’s being supported would influence people’s decisions.

Very true. Especially in the ephemeral PC realm, this can make reviews utterly meaningless. Does a launch review of Team Fortress 2 hold any meaning anymore? Does a review of a MMO offer any help after the first patch of many? Even more, how can we best post reviews for things like this? Update with a later review? Emphasize the time-stamp? Post everything on a scrolling twitter-feed that eventually erases itself?