| LMU Uncle Alfred said: I think Jimquisition has it right at 8.5. For now when you first play U4 it feels anywhere from a 9 to a 10 (and I'll admit I'm enjoying it pretty well), but what about grading on quality of lasting appeal? I mean REAL lasting appeal. Even if a game is really good by itself, but copies a lot of what a lot of other games do, how can that be considered good lasting appeal? How will U4 feel 10 years from now? I think that's a question and criteria that needs to be put in all reviews. Reviewers do take into account lasting appeal or replay value, but they do an extremely poor job of it on the grand scale. One of the most important qualities of replay value that is almost never taken into account in a review is how a game owns itself and separates itself from the rest. It's true that U4 is currently the most visually impressive game right now, but how long do you think that will last? The main gameplay, regardless of how smooth it is is still that same TPS cover shooter gameplay that so many other games have. Why do people still enjoy Super Metroid, FF7, Super Mario World, Chrono Trigger, OoT and MGS1-3 today? I swear I just saw someone say they finally played through FF7 on youtube and they were extremely impressed. There are new players being introduced to these games today. It isn't nostalgia. It's because each of these games owned themselves and didn't try to appeal to anyone's taste or be like the other games. That's why they can be played again and again throughout the ages. They provide a very specific experience you can't get anywhere else and they do it very well. *Reviews these days almost seem to punish the idea of separating yourself from the pack.* |
While i understand the argument you're making (and in many respects agree), i don't personally think we should be holding present-day games to the ageing or progression standards of previous generations. This isn't the 80's or 90's (or to a lesser extent early 2000's) anymore, where many genres were still maturing, and a relatively small increase in your render budget could open the doors to gameplay ideas that were previously almost impossible.
I'd agree that the industry has become too safe, and that critics should do more to encourage risk, but i likewise don't think they should punish games that care more about hitting expectations than surprising. Uncharted 4 doesn't redefine the 3rd person shooter, or stand out as a shining beacon of originality (to be frank, i don't believe a single AAA title from anyone this gen deserves that title) but it does excel at delivering the experience it set out to make, and that its target audience wanted. The need to redefine shouldn't inherently supersede the need to refine, and deliver want many currently want. I think reviews should reflect that.
In essence, i think we agree in principle, but disagree as to how to go about handling it.
On a side note, as it happens i do actually think UC4 will still be very well liked in 2026 (as UC2 is now, at almost 7 years old) :p Perhaps not in the same context as something OoT is, but well liked and remembered regardless.
TL;DR: I agree critics should do more to encourage games to take risks, but i likewise don't think they should punish developers for excelling at delivering what those in the present-day want.
