What is an "outstanding" game, and how reviews are constructed.

[bugrimmar]

rocketpig said:

bugrimmar said:
^ we might think we have few expectations coming into something, but our preconceived ideas and background in entertainment can't help but control our point of view.

the best example is mgs4. most reviewers have played the first 3 to death, and have no idea what a new player must feel when playing the game. it's very very unlikely for a new player to enjoy it at all because it's far too thick into it's own. but reviewers praised it to heaven because they were thinking in the mindset of a fan of the series.

just like us watching a movie like "lost in translation". i have very little knowledge about the plot (actually i have no idea what it was about). but before watching it, i knew it was about japan, a country that i love, and it has bill murray, an actor i admire, and that it's been nominated for an academy award. so in my mind "it has to be good". that in itself can influence me already as to whether or not i will enjoy the movie, even if i'm not aware of it. when i had my dad watch it, he fell asleep coz he didn't know anything that i knew.

what i'm saying is, preconceived expectations can really influence our decisions and most of the time we have no idea at all.

Then replace Apocalypse Now with Punch Drunk Love, a movie I knew nothing of, had no one in it of whom I am a fan, and yet still loved.

Expectations do factor into certain things but for others, they're irrelevant or contradictory. MGS4 was reviewed poorly because reviewers are, by and large, a group of sophomoric idiots, not because they had expectations coming in about the previous games. Using your basis of argument, it's unfair to reward Return of the King with any rewards because if people didn't see Fellowship or Two Towers, they'd be missing 75% of the story. After all, to fully appreciate the film, it's expected that the audience put in anywhere from 5-7 hours of "work" to see the first two films.

hm, i agree. yeah.

hm.. but i also still stick to the idea that reviewers are stuck in a "high definition" mindset. everything has to be better looking, better sounding, sharper, etc. than before because they've come to expect games to go hand in hand with technology. also, i still have to stick with the idea about what  truly outstanding game is, but i gotta give you credit for making me see a modification in my theory.

sure, return of the king is a great movie. but it isn't one of the best movies ever made, because it's "incomplete" by itself. the lord of the rings trilogy, however, is outstanding.

so based on that reasoning, mgs4, by itself, is largely "incomplete". but the metal gear series is, as a whole, outstanding.

but lone games by themselves (one game alone) that accomplishes completeness without the need for sequels is what i can call an outstanding "game".