by Lonex Louisdor
The current state of video game reviews has become untenable. Short Review periods before embargo, exhausted reviewers, and ingrained interests are only some of the various problems. The average review no longer gives the audience what they actually need: accurate information for an informed purchase.
The Rat Race
Reviewers are incentivized to finish the game as soon as possible to be one of the “first batch” reviews that people can see. Being in the “first batch” of reviews means everything; it’s where the clicks, the eyeballs, and the ad revenue live. If a critic isn’t part of that initial embargo lift, their traffic craters.
The result? Only the most hardcore fans read multiple reviews. Everyone else glances at a day-one score and moves on.
Publishers often delay review copies to polish the “Day One” experience, leaving critics with a brutally compressed window. We are seeing reviewers forced to tackle 40–100-hour games in just 3–7 days. Instead of playing, they are speedrunning. The art, the pacing, and those “holy shit” moments are sacrificed to the altar of bug-chasing and checklist grinding.
Frustration becomes the dominant emotion instead of wonder. This distorts the ecosystem: early scores set a narrative defined by half-caffeinated writers who never experienced the game the way a normal player would.
The Living Game
A perfect escalation to this problem? Games are now a living product compared to games of yesteryear. Back in the day, a review was a time capsule. You played the disc, wrote the piece, and that was that. Today, games are ever shifting sands. The version reviewed during an embargo is basically a beta compared to the product 6 or 18 months later.
Crimson Desert is a prime example. The sheer volume of updates from Pearl Abyss continues to transform the game into a significantly better product within just the first few weeks of launch. When games like Cyberpunk 2077, Starfield, or No Man’s Sky evolve so drastically, a “solidified” review becomes misleading, or straight-up obsolete the moment it hits the web.
Better Review Ecosystem
1. Radical Transparency
Reviews should explicitly list the context of the playthrough:
- Build Version: What version was tested?
- Time Investment: How many hours were played, and was the main story completed?
- Difficulty Settings: This is vital, as some games scale back mechanics on lower difficulties.
- Patch Logs: Which major patches were applied during the review period?
2. The “Living Score”
A single number shouldn’t stay frozen in time for a game that is constantly changing.
- Launch Score: The state of the game at release.
- Current Score: An updated rating reflecting major content drops, balance patches, or monetization tweaks.
3. Flexible Gatekeepers
Platforms like Metacritic and OpenCritic need to provide avenues for updated scores. Simultaneously, publishers must provide longer lead times, and outlets should utilize “Review in Progress” tags to maximize views without rushing the final verdict.
What do you think? Is the “Living Score” the future, or does it give developers an excuse to launch broken games?
Join the discussion in our Discord and let us know your solution! For more articles like this, click here.
