So here’s a question – I’m keeping it hypothetical for now.
Game A is released, and it’s awesome, gaining both critical and popular acclaim. The publishers see dollar signs, and demand a sequel as soon as possible. With no time to develop an entirely new title, Game B is thus virtually the same except for cosmetic changes and a few tweaks.
Now, how is a reviewer to respond to game B? Do they criticise it for being just a re-tread of a Game we’ve already played, and a cynical cash in? If B is the same as A, however, doesn’t that by default mean that it’s awesome too?
In the context of reviewing brand new games, I think the issue is resolved fairly easily: you can assume that many potential fans will already have paid £30 for A, and question if a second helping is really worth another £30. Looking back on A and B from years later, though, it’s a bit different. We’re talking games you’ll probably either get cheap on ebay or scrounge off an abandonware site. Also, even if you already slogged through A, that might have been 8 years ago, so you might be more open to the idea of that second helping.
Because of this, I’m wondering if the mindset of “same as the original, we’ve already been there and done that” is really a valid comment when reviewing oldies. How much weight should we place on similarity to predecessors when assessing a game?
Posts
It depends what the similarities are I guess. Most of the time I’d say that if game B is marginally better than game A and the person reading the review doesn’t have either then it makes sense to recommend that they go straight for game B. This especially applies to sports and racing games – you may as well get the marginal improvements if you’re not going to be charged £30 for them.
With other genres it can be tricky. I’m not trying to guess what you’re talking about, but I remember some reviewers had difficulties in evaluating Doom II when it first came out. My instinct would be to recommend the original to people who haven’t already played it, and then if they like it they can check out the sequel so long as they realise it’s more of the same.
But given that they’re similar and don’t have much of a storyline to speak of, would it be logical to recommend the sequel on the basis that it has the Super-Shotgun and, er, other superficial improvements?
October 23, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
I had to address this when I did Terror From the Deep. I think I handled it well in the final. Since TFTD basically IS the original X-Com, it doesn’t deserve praise for being a pretty blatant clone. At the same time, it comes away less than 10 points from my score of the original. So I suppose I covered both of the possible approaches from your second paragraph. I essentially said that it’s great if you want more X-Com. It’s not as good as the original.
I would say the approach ultimately depends on the tone or perspective of the reviewer – if you want to review things from a historical perspective versus a modern perspective. I understand wanting to give a nod to the fact that you can pick up the lesser sibling for probably less than is in your pockets right now, but a player’s time still has value. Very few people are going to play every game simply because they’re there, so I believe establishing to your readers what’s worth their time is the real value of retro reviews, and it’s at least as important as suggesting what they should spend their money on (in modern reviews).
Short version, I don’t think the age of the game should matter, and "this is a rehash of A" is still a valid point.
October 24, 2007 @ 5:20 am
I kept waiting for the next post, to try and keep to the order in here, but the hell with it…
Thanks for the Undying review. Excellent, and you’ve saved me a good 20 hours. I get these urges to play games I’ve already played over again – as I see it, you can at least justify a new game, but playing one you beat twice is a near-total waste of time – and I’ve found that a good review can shunt that. Thanks for providing one.
Excellent review of Quake as well, Stoo. Very curious to see what you think of Quake 2 and Doom. And Operation Flashpoint as well. I remember that game fell apart for me around the time you had to stumble through the squad command interface. Frequently dying of mysterious heart attacks (or unseen snipers’ bullets) wasn’t a joy either.
November 19, 2007 @ 6:57 pm