heywood on 16/7/2015 at 13:26
The topic of this thread is Top XXX Games Ever, so judging newer games without stacking them up against older games is missing the entire point.
And I agree with icemann when it comes to franchises. If you're going to review Dingleberry Maker 4, play its predecessors for context or get another job.
N'Al on 16/7/2015 at 13:42
Considering icemann referenced the Syndicate article it's abundantly clear he wasn't just talking about the original topic of this thread.
heywood on 16/7/2015 at 15:45
Jason Moyer and icemann pointed out the loss of "experience" at RPS, which I've noticed too. It helps explain some of the oddities of their top...ever lists, so I think it is relevant to the original topic.
But anyway, regardless of the above, I still don't think it makes any sense to judge a franchise game on its own merits without stacking it up against its predecessors. It doesn't make sense to judge any game without context, and in the case of a series/franchise, the latest game has to be judged against its modern peers and its predecessors. If a reviewer isn't able to reach back and compare it to its predecessors, their opinion is worthless to fans of the franchise and to most anybody who played the predecessors. This seems self-explanatory to me.
henke on 16/7/2015 at 18:52
Quote Posted by heywood
But anyway, regardless of the above, I still don't think it makes any sense to judge a franchise game on its own merits without stacking it up against its predecessors. It doesn't make sense to judge any game without context, and in the case of a series/franchise, the latest game has to be judged against its modern peers and its predecessors. If a reviewer isn't able to reach back and compare it to its predecessors, their opinion is worthless to fans of the franchise and to most anybody who played the predecessors. This seems self-explanatory to me.
Depends on the franchise. If it's something like Assassin's Creed where every new entry isn't that different from previous ones I'm sure fans will be better informed by a reviewer who has been following the series, rather than someone new to it who might spend a good portion of the review going over things that everyone who has played the previous games will know about already. But in cases like the Syndicate FPS? It has so little in common with the original that you're gonna get a better, more fair review from someone who can look at it with fresh eyes. All that fans of the original will bring to the table is whinging about how it isn't like the original and therefore sucks. Not very helpful.
Yakoob on 16/7/2015 at 19:15
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
RPS has fairly predictable opinions about most things, especially if you know the specific writer(s) contributing to something.
Wait, isn't that kind of a good thing? It means they're consistent and have a style. Unless you mean it translates to lack of objectivity (which, I always felt, RPS never claimed to be? Hence why they changed "reviews" to "wot
I think"s).
But I see your other points about limited experience / exposure to classic games. Never paid attention to that, but will keep in mind.
Quote Posted by heywood
Jason Moyer and icemann pointed out the loss of "experience" at RPS, which I've noticed too. It helps explain some of the oddities of their top...ever lists, so I think it is relevant to the original topic.
That is a good point but isn't that simply representative of the gaming sphere as a whole these days? In the past decade we've definitely gained many newcomers to the gaming world who would naturally be biased towards newer games. That both explains RPSes writers, as well why that model may garner bigger audience being more relatable.
Quote Posted by icemann
many articles about a sequel and/or game inspired by a game of old where the reviewer has never played the original/game it's based off, which to me always = their opinion meaning nothing
Err, i think that's overly harsh, no? I can understand the argument for wanting reviewers to have a solid background and understanding of gaming classics, but at the same time one should not be required to have played a prequel to enjoy a new title unless they are a deliberate continuation on the story (i.e. Mass Effect or so). So I dont think discrediting someone for not playing original is necessarily evil.
I mean, even as a "seasoned" gamer I played SS2 before SS1, does my opinion mean nothing then?
Sulphur on 17/7/2015 at 05:37
Terminator Genisys is a retooling of the previous Terminator movies, so obviously you'd need to know what happened before to make sense of what's happening in the movie. Games don't quite work like that, unless you're talking about something really narrative driven - like heading into episode 3 of The Walking Dead S1 without playing the prior two episodes.
A game is still something that can be good at being a game, or not. Whether a person has had previous experience with the franchise does not render their viewpoint on what works and what doesn't in a game null and void - especially if there's very little narrative or story connective tissue with the previous games.
Syndicate the FPS has so little to do with the previous games that, whether or not you've had experience with the franchise, it's easy enough to judge on its own merits -- which is that it's a pretty mediocre FPS all in all, and whether or not you like the Syndicate setting, or know more about it, does not change that.
Pyrian on 18/7/2015 at 15:58
A review from a newcomer would be more applicable to a newcomer, while a review from a series veteran would be more relevant to a series veteran.
...Duh. :p
Yakoob on 18/7/2015 at 23:04
And in a single sentence, Pyrian pretty much rationally disarms the whole argument without offending anyone.
*slow non-sarcastic clap*
Thirith on 29/7/2015 at 07:05
Quote Posted by Pyrian
A review from a newcomer would be more applicable to a newcomer, while a review from a series veteran would be more relevant to a series veteran.
...Duh. :p
That's partly true, but I sometimes appreciate getting a fresh perspective on, well, anything, whether it's games, films, books or any other medium. Sometimes we like something because we're used to it, not because it's inherently better, and it happens all too often that veterans dislike changes because they are changes.
It's an unhealthy attitude to think that reviews are about being right or wrong, and judging them by how much they agree with our opinions. They're additions to a conversation; some are interesting, worthwhile additions, some are negligible but there may be a nugget of interest in there, and some can just be ignored.
Starker on 29/7/2015 at 07:46
More like horror and horror themed games. Seems like the writer ran out of games and started just throwing things on there. They could at least give the job to someone who's familiar with the genre. I can think of at least a few games missing from the list (like Clock Tower and Sanitarium, for example) that would have been more suitable than Blood or VTMB. If Blood is a horror game, then so is Doom and most shooters with monsters.
Anyway, here's the full list for the lazy:
Quote:
1. S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call Of Pripyat
2. System Shock 2
3. Pathologic
4. Alien: Isolation
5. Silent Hill 2
6. Amnesia: The Dark Descent
7. Resident Evil 4
8. Teleglitch
9. Condemned: Criminal Origins
10. Left 4 Dead 2
11. Knock-knock
12. F.E.A.R.
13. Blood
14. The Evil Within
15. Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines
16. Lone Survivor
17. Alan Wake
18. Depths of Fear: Knossos
19. Dead Space 2
20. Manhunt
21. Sylvio
22. My Father's Long, Long Legs
23. DayZ
24. Scratches
25. Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth
