POLL: Is something inherently lacking from a remake/remaster review if critic hasn't completed the original?

[JWeinCom]

coolbeans said:

JWeinCom said:

No. Definitely not. Absolutely not.

Reviews offer different perspectives. And, as a reader, if you're trying to figure out if something is worth your money, you have to find the perspective that works for you. If I'm considering something like Live A Live where I haven't played the original, what I really want is the perspective of someone who is coming to the game fresh like I am. If it's something like Skyward Sword HD, I'm going to want to see if the game is worth it to someone who played the originals. So, its good to have reviews from multiple perspectives.

That being said from an editorial/professionalism standpoint, you should make sure reviews match up with the expectations of your audience, and the target audience of the developers. For instance, something like Mario 3D World is probably going for a pretty broad audience, and the Wii U sold so poorly that a lot of people are not going to have played it, so it makes more sense to review it as if it were something new and not pay too much attention to the Wii U version. On the other hand, something like the upcoming Mega Man Battle Network Collection is clearly targeting the nostalgia crowd most keenly, so it wouldn't make too sense to have the review done by someone who hadn't played any of the originals.

So, to put it another way, there's no ding against a newbie's/semi-newbie's professionalism to review a remake so long as the situation harmonizes with the dev's implicit goals.  It's just on me (or any reviewer) to do a good job explaining their pros/cons from the overall experience.  

My interpretation of DS Remake: "We're still using the skeleton that Visceral made over a decade ago (location, aliens, atmosphere), but refashioning it in exciting ways.  We're gutting out and re-doing certain areas, Isaac isn't a buckethead, yada yada yada.  We respect the source material, but this is also an EA Motive game open for old fans & newcomers."

Conversely, if I had an obvious bias against all pre-90's gaming it'd be wildly unfair to handle the Atari 50th Collection.  Fair interpretation?

Not exactly. I think you're coming at it from a different perspective than I am. I don't really care about fair vs unfair all that much, I'm thinking of what is useful for readers. My view is that the point of reviews is to help people decide whether to buy a game or not, although I recognize that's not why everyone reads them. I mentioned developers intentions, because theoretically the dev/publisher's are going to, to a large extent, define the potential market of the game, and therefore who would be interested in a review.

For example, using Atari 50th, based on the marketing and just what that game is, I would imagine that basically anyone who would consider buying it would be someone who at least sort of likes old Atari era games. Why would any of those people care in the least what someone who hates Atari-era games think of it? People like me who just don't like Atari style games don't need a review to help us decide whether or not we want to buy a collection of Atari games; I know I don't. So, who really has any use for that review?

In contrast, something like the FF7 remake/remaster/rewhatever you want to call it is going to interest people who played the original, but also probably a lot of people who hadn't. So, a review from either perspective might be useful to some part of the audience.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 25 December 2022