In the recent VGC Interview with Torillian, he stated there were a few games he reviewed (like 2) he wished he could alter the scores of after being too lenient/harsh.

Here's the dilemma: Do you fix the reviews for accuracy, or does that detract from the site's credibility? A [bad] review is [bad] forever, but a fixed one needs explanation...

[] - "Bad" in this case in no way reflects the quality of Torillian's work. I'm speaking generally.

I think this is a necessity really. I wish IGN did this. I remember looking at an old PS2 racing game, checked the IGN review which was good (8 something) and picked it up. The game sucked ass!! It was a launch title and little more than a PS game with slightly (and I mean slightly) better graphics.

It may have been the best racer on PS2 when it come out but that score should have been drastically lowered over the years. Otherwise old reviews simply aren't worth keeping.

Of course not

In the VG Chartz team forum there is just a few people that usually goes over the reviews that someone writes up and could mean the score may be still to low or to high, but when you get the opinion of a hundred people replying to the review and everyone is saying it should be higher or lower then maybe the score should be change to satisfy what the VG Chartz members thinks instead of what the people that wrote up and approved the review think (As long as the members have good enough reasons to drop or raise the score).

Sinse the review IS technically the websites (VG chartz) review and score, not just one persons opinion. When you see a review on Metacritic it wont say the review came from Torillian or Machina it's going to say VG Chartz reviews.

That's the way I see it.

i altered my old buzz review score.. so no...

no. because what that really shows is the guy that reviewed it then thought about it after whilst seeing other cores most likely and is trying to line it up more closely to the AVG of all other sites.

Personally it does not matter what score you give a game. You may be like the ONLY person who likes this game so why shoudl you score it low?

eg some of the Wii Sports Wii Resort etc.. alot of HARDCORE sites slam these, but you may find it addictive.


one example for me is Haze. I like the game alot. sure about 90% of gamers slammed it but hey it is personal taste.

The scores should stay the same because they're supposed to be how good they were at the time of release. If they did that then games like OoT would be scored lower today.

In certain cases, I do think there would be some benefit to re-reviewing games with the benefit of hindsight, but it should be a separate review instead of changing the original.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea as long as their is significant written justification for the change in review score and it's not just a stealth edit. I think it's preferrable to treating reviews like gospel and reviewers like saints.

They can make mistakes and should be allowed to change the review for the benefit of people who may not have purchased the game yet. For example: there is no doubt that plenty of games these days get gameplay and longevity marks just for having multiplayer when there's no chance for the reviewer to have invested enough time to appreciate the subtleties and the quality of the multiplayer when the review is first posted.

Mariokart is a game that I would have put in the low 80's after a weeks play but probably over 90% after 3-4 weeks play.

Pure idiocy: you'd be flushing your credibility down the toilet if everyone knew that scores were always open to revision after the fact and, on top of that, once you open that barn door nobody will ever be able to be 100% sure *why* the score was changed. (Was it, say, company pressure?)--it also renders the entire scoring process completely arbitrary since nothing will ever be final.

So no, do not do it, and do not even think about it!

the only thing I feel should EVER be changed is going back and lowering or raising a score due to replayability. i find it moronic to be able to tell if a game will have good replayability in the short couple days they play the game.

I mean you can't tell if your gong to be playing this game in a couple months still. I'd like to see a list of all the games that have a 10 for replayability. I bet over 90% of them I don't play anymore, or wouldn't even want to. and a 10 should mean it's got amazing lasting appeal such as 2d mario's, pong, tetris, contra, and others. not some generic shooter for the month that will be tossed aside the next one that comes. and you can only tell that later. like cod4 and halo games i notice after playing the new shooter for a while they go BACK to those games. That is lasting appeal.