Modern reviews should be done in a different way in my view. The way they are done today is outdate in my view. Some games are fine to review and it won't be changed after you have played through it. New modern games however seem to have a life after it is released.
New modern games have a longer life than they had before. They are no longer just finished when you get them out of the box. You can download games digitally and there are tons of games in different genre's with different games. Gaming is so big and diverse now compared to 10-20 years ago that journalists should do the same. The videogame art has changed as a whole.
Destiny, Sports games, Project Spark, League of Legends, MMO's, Minecraft, etc. are all games that have a life after it is released. Those games should get at least an update review after it has been out for a while. This is something some sites have done like IGN. But they are few and far between them. Games don't get a second look from the same reviewer unfortunately. The first review often states of what they think of the sites think of the game when it is released. The game might have been that good or bad at launch, but it might have gotten worse or better after launch. It is something that needs to be tackled in the industry in my opinion
The sites have to follow suit of what the industry is, and now stick to what it was years ago. When you got a game and it was static after that. The games change more in today's industry than ever. They continue to get support long after it's released. The DLC for games mostly don't get reviews either, and it should reflect the game as a whole aswell.