Hello.
For the second time this month, I’ve gone back to revisit a game that I already covered a while ago, in an attempt to provide a slightly more insightful review.
I don’t think I’m going to make a habit of this. It was fun to go back and play the games again – but there are many more out there, and if I keep picking at the old content we probably won’t get much new stuff.
Anyway, today’s reheated write-up is of Speedball 2: Brutal Deluxe.
Posts
I know we’ve talked before about the merit of going back and revisiting old reviews, but I find myself supporting it more and more. At the very least, I can say that I don’t feel disappointed or short-changed when I see a re-review on FFG. (If we’re being honest, I’ve probably long forgotten the original, so it’s like a new review for me!) I would likewise hope people don’t roll their eyes when I post a revised review.
I don’t know if anyone else can tell, but I can definitely see the reviews where I cut corners, took too long to write after playing it, forgot exactly why I took certain screenshots and whatever they were meant to point out. Not to mention, there’s maturity gained over the years – not just in general growing up, but in how we review games, what people look for in an old review, a wider selection of experience – that many of my old reviews could SORELY benefit from.
At the same time, yeah, I don’t feel compelled to retread ground often either. Focusing on documenting and research feels relatively new to me, and there’s plenty of my reviews that could use more screenshots, more explanation, more direction – bringing them in line with other, better reviews. But it does seem like an endless circle. I already feel like I should have written a walkthrough for Last Rites, while it was still fresh in my mind. Is that where we’re headed? It’s 2045, and this is the fiftieth playthrough and revision, this time for holographic VR captures?
I guess I’m saying I personally don’t mind the occasional review refresh, and hope others accept mine in moderation, provided it’s making for better content.
April 19, 2016 @ 7:00 am
I think probably you end up being your own worst critic and notice things that don’t really bother other readers too much – that’s why I fear starting to pick at that particular thread can escalate quickly!
Having said that, whenever we last discussed this I think two things stuck with me: 1) every review is a sample of what the site has to offer, and 2) your oldest reviews might be of more popular games.
I chose to re-write these two because they were both too brief and probably the kind of games most retro-fans might want to read about. Also because I really was interested in revisiting the games themselves – I’d pretty much forgotten the whole second half of Toonstruck, and I wanted to actually see if I could make progress in Speedball 2.
Having said all that, I was left with a bit of a strange feeling when re-writing them, like I was covering old ground. Perhaps it was the fact that my overall conclusions weren’t that different from my original ones. Or maybe the sense that, having chosen to re-write the old content, the new reviews should somehow be extra detailed or otherwise much improved in some way.
I think occasional revisions are ok. As you said about my re-writes, although I’ve read most of your old reviews, if you chose to revise one I certainly wouldn’t remember the original enough to have much of an opinion, except I would be glad to see something newly-written that I could read. No eye-rolling here!
April 19, 2016 @ 8:44 am