I'm going to have to agree with those who say no changes to the main review, ever. As nazna said, if it's factually correct (which some "professional" reviewers can't even seem to get that right anymore), then it goes up to stay. It is an impression of the game, at the time it came out. A review of Wii Sports should reflect 2006, not 2010. Should Wii Sports be docked points now because of Wii Sports Resort? No, and if we'd be so fickle as to allow that, then it means our review scores would mean nothing. Conversely, does WSR being better mean that it must have a higher score than WS? Again, no, as there may be more intriguing things out by that time, indicating that the improvements to the game have not kept up with general improvements over time. That is what the difference in score should reflect. Feel free to say in the wording that you think WSR is better than WS, but also explain the score. This is part of how a good review is written- it is explainable.

I do also, however, like the idea of going back and posting an "updated" review for the times, but under no circumstance should this replace the original review. GameInformer, for all the crap in it, used to do this quite nicely. (It's a section that got axed in the revamping... *grumbles* ) However, I would wait at least 1 year before doing one of these, and should something merit a subsequent update, then the updates may replace each other, as they are only in reference to how the game fares to more modern standards.

So I guess in a nutshell, no, the original review should be stuck for good. If anything, replace "updated" reviews with more updated ones, and feel free to have it next to the original. I'd actually like to see what some people think about how a game ages, as that's something you really don't get to see at the current review sites... (And I think it would give an extra edge up to reading reviews at VGC...)

You guys write reviews?

In other words, I don't read them.

I think it is perfectly fine to update a review. But not because a person's opinion of the game has changed based on time. If it's just a time issue then it could be because other games that the reviewer feels are better can alter his review/opinion unfairly. However, when a game patches itself I think the reviewer has an obligation to update his review, as things that could stop someone from purchasing the title may have been addressed. Though I feel the original review should stay, just have a small update and revised review score at the bottom.

I think this could be a great addition as an editorial feature to the site. Run it bi-annually and call it "Gift of hindsight" - where the review authors get the opportunity to re-assess their scores against the likes of what is currently available in the market. Have a simple two part paragraph system with a "What we gave it then" section and then "How it holds up" section.

I think a bunch of reviews on this site were done a year after the release anyway though, which to me hurts the credibility image more than anything as you've already got this gift.

I like this idea.  Someone should make this happen.

Games are reviewed for what they are at release. They won't be changed for patches.

I'll consider something like a 6 month update, but it wouldn't take the place of the original review, and I won't be instituting anything like that anytime soon. Too much other stuff going on right now.