By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Hey, all. 

So, there's currently a split decision between me and someone else to review the upcoming Dead Space Remake.  Given how much I liked retreading The Last of Us Part I, I thought this could be a great opportunity too.  Just one difference:

-Part I: I played the OG Last of Us to completion twice.  First time was through Hard & the next was New Game+ on Grounded (which I think was like a DLC bonus or added in an update).  So, that experience was just re-sparking my memory.

-Dead Space: I only played some of OG with my best bud and watched a livestream or two in the background (i.e. not research purposes).  I kinda get the overarching concepts from other sources too: he was just a buckethead until DS2, the HUD layout, slicing up monsters, the weird Uni-something religion, etc.  

With this background in mind, here's the question: is something inherently lost (or perhaps incomplete) if a critic reviews a game remake without ever completing the original work?  Does that affect the overall "professionalism" in your opinion?  Doing your best to strip me out of the equation, answer yes or no in the poll.  Feel free to expand on answer in the comment too.

Second EDIT: I'll probably lock this poll after a week (from its original post).

Last edited by coolbeans - on 28 December 2022