I will freely admit that I don't complete most games before doing a review. I can't. It would be entirely and in all other ways impossible. It's just a fact.
Now, some can frown on this all they want but after many years of reviewing, I have very rarely done a review for a game, played it longer, and said to myself, "damn, that wasn't the right score." That doesn't happen because in truth, I knew everything I needed to know. I play until I reach that point – it could take only a few hours or it could take much longer – and then write the review.
For the record, I had the 360 version for our Skyrim review . Why? Bethesda tells me they didn't have any PS3 versions at the time review copies were being sent out. So I made that clear to our readers, added that I hoped the PS3 version would be similar, and even got a chance to see Sony's version a little before posting the review. But I wasn't able to play to the point where everyone started experiencing major problems; i.e., when the PS3 save file gets too big (between 6 and 10MB).
As I understand it, that takes 30-40 hours of play, which no critic ever needs to put in for a review. I'm also not the only critic who posted a review for this game without ever seeing that problem. Therefore, the question is- as amazing as Skyrim really is, and although I stick to my 9.7 provided everything is running correctly, should critics write new reviews with new scores? I mean, frankly, the game was kinda broken. Flat-out broken, right? It needed to be fixed after launch.
Heck, even the first patch didn't do the trick for everyone. So maybe it's just inaccurate to leave reviews that don't reflect these problems. Then again, think of it this way- the scores will always be there and these issues should be resolved by next week after the second patch (ideally). So if everything is hunky-dory and critics did re-review the game, taking the problems into account, wouldn't that be inaccurate for future consumers? I'm just at a loss…this is sort of a unique situation.