I just published a new editorial on Ten Ton Hammer called "Reviewing Responsibly". Basically, I question whether or not it's a good idea for critics to be publishing final verdicts on MMOGs so close to the day of launch. The practice is done solely for pageviews and advertising dollars, which could be just as easily grabbed with a "Launch Day Impressions" article, minus the final score.
The argument could be posited that if you're going to review a game, you should review it as it is sold to the public, but I can't help but make the case that an MMOG is not your ordinary piece of software entertainment and shouldn't be treated like just another offline game. MMOGs are living and changing worlds (for the most part) that undergo a lot of changes and fluctuations, and are far too large and meandering to spend five hours in and then just assign a score based on the tutorial levels.
The review system in general for videogames, this 7-10 score bullcrap we see dominating the magazines and internet media outlets, is garbage as it is. But it's even more nonsensical when applied to an MMOG. Impressions first, review later, and subsequent re-reviews down the line as the game changes. That's how reviews for online worlds should be handled in my book.
In fact, I think it might be time for me to revisit a few old haunts for my own re-reviewing. Too bad Auto Assault is still dead... I'm in the mood for four-wheeled carnage.