By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

One problem is they are official site reviews. The site can't really have two different official reviews*, which is partly why I now regret us doing new reviews for Director's Cut versions of what were still very new games.

An extension of that is it also poses this question: which review becomes the site's official review on aggregate sites? The first one, or the second one, and why?

While I certainly see merit in an updated look at a game that may have been patched extensively and given significant free content updates (I'm thinking something like No Man's Sky, which by most accounts is now a radically different and much better game), I think this is more appropriately covered in an article rather than a second scored review that in a way overwrites/overrides the original.

*(I will say I do like the Famitsu approach of having 4 individual writers giving their scores, which are then added together to give a combined Famitsu total, but that's not feasible for any but the biggest outlets. It's also slightly different in that the separate reviews/scores are all done at the same time and it's baked into their system from the start, rather than being haphazard after the fact.)