Editor's note: Are reviewers more likely to give high scores to new games simply because they're new? Chase argues from personal experience that such newness can cause one to overlook flaws. Although, I have a hunch that some high-profile games receive top scores because it's expected after so much hype. -Rob

For the past 18 months, I've written video game reviews for my college newspaper, The Maneater. The pay sucks, but the experience has been great. I feel I've grown as a writer.

But here's the thing about growth -- it implies that your earlier stuff wasn't as good.

My eyes opened to a lot of rookie mistakes when I reread many of my reviews for games released last year. Blindly following a template, using clichés -- I've done them all. But I believe one mistake deserves a bit of exploration -- unintentionally inflating a game's score because of its newness.

The two most prominent examples I could find were Brutal Legend and Scribblenauts, both of which I gave a 4.5 out of 5 in my paper. Hindsight being 20/20, I would probably knock a point or two off each if I reviewed them again today. So what led me to score them so highly in the first place?

Let's take Brutal Legend, for instance. Generally, I enjoyed my time with the game when it came out. The dialogue was funny, the story was interesting, and -- though not executed perfectly -- the real-time strategy mechanics were innovative.

Although I agree with every word of my original review, I feel I left out many of the game's flaws. The title has little replay value and the RTS elements are clunky.

I wish I could go back and talk to mid-October Chase to see exactly what he was thinking, but without a time machine (of which I am still waiting for -- what the hell scientists?) I'm left only to speculate.

As an amateur reviewer who doesn't have the opportunity to purchase a ton of games every year, am I suffering from rose-colored glasses syndrome? Do I see these games for what they truly are now that their newness sheen has worn off?

Or do I only feel remorse at my previous scores because I'm comparing them with the score I just gave Mass Effect 2 (also a 4.5)? Is Mass Effect 2 a better game than Brutal Legend? Absolutely.

Have my scores become skewed? Is it even fair to compare scores of games that come out months apart when the landscape of gaming has quite possibly changed drastically?

I know I've thrown out many questions here, but allow me one more. Has something like this ever happened to you? Or has the opposite ever happened, where you were too harsh on a game at first but warmed up to it over time?

You should consider these questions the next time you read or write any review.