Time May Change Me, But I Can't Trace Time - your ideas

[charlesr]

Please use this thread to discuss your ideas relating to Jez Overton's "Time May Change Me" Editorial, e.g. what might work, what compromises would have to be made and it might be interesting to look at the timeline of a review's relevancy. His piece doesn't have all the answers, so it's over to you guys.

If you wish to submit feedback for the feature, please PM Jez/Brats or email [email protected]

[Sketcz]

Seeing as the prices of games fluctuate (as in, keep going down as common titles get old), I've always thought that reviews should adapt over time. There's a big different buying a game for ?39.99 brand new, and buying that same game 6 months later for ?9.99 brand new. A game that scores "8" in reviews, in my mind then becomes a "9" due to the price change.

An interesting idea, though only one that could work online methinks, or in a retro publication.

[Dirty Sanchez]

I would prefer if the site concentrated on reviewing more titles than trying to refine the reviews of older ones. It was a oft raised complaint/comment that the site was too slow on the up take of new titles, that has largely been improved.

A review is always a personal critique, is the amendment going to be made by the original author or just be a hashed version from a number of contributors? The flow and style of the review could be wrecked in minutes. With the feedback of reviews now effectively behind closed doors this just seems to be a smart idea without the thought into how it will actually work.

The timeline and placing of the review is as important as the content, going back to Goldeneye for example would just highlight the jerk-o-vision, probably ignoring the impact of the game at the time.

[charlesr]

We aren't necessarily thinking of making any changes to the review system, so please think outside the box as much as you want. Pretend all the tech is in place to implement ANY idea you come up with.

Good point about the jerk-o-vision - clearly the game was awesome at the time, but if people read an old review now, are they looking to see what it was like at the time or are they looking to see what it will be like if they play it now? Perhaps it would best keeping the original review and adding a "What it's like now - last updated yyyymmdd by reader-name" type section.

Or perhaps just a link to the First Play thread would be enough.

If the infrastructure was in place, would anyone ever bother updating older reviews. I'm pretty sure the retro community would.

[Rsdio]

I prefer it the way it is now, to be honest. I feel I'm capable of reading a review of an older game and making any necessary adjustments myself based on how time may have treated it.

To me, something is worth looking at if it was great in it's time even if if might not fare as well against current stuff. I watch a lot of old films, but I don't generally judge them against what comes out now - I'll sit and think how revolutionary something might have been when it first came out, without tainting it because the same thing might have become a cliche later on. I think you've just got to try and create a context for yourself.

[Darwock]

I read old reviews quite a lot as I tend to get into games a long time after their hey-day (that said it's usually still within the current gen). I like reading about them as if they were 'new', it's quite interesting. I think you'd find the 'graphic whore' tendencies of the general masses would get in the way if they were allowed to re-appraise a game many years after, so I'd say leave the original review alone. Maybe append comments to it at the most or something.

[djjimbob]

You could have a subsection to a review, called "The test of time" for example.

In there you could have a seperate re-appraisal of the core components of the game, including graphics, sounds, playability, lastability as well as a fun factor ie. how much fun the game is to play today or wheter it has been suceeded by other titles.

You could also disucss the game's relevance in terms of the time it was released compared to now.

[charlesr]

You could also disucss the game's relevance in terms of the time it was released compared to now.

Yeah, there must be a bunch of titles that were reviewed with indifference at launch but increased in relevance with time once the games were understood. e.g. P.N.03 3/10 (and the opposite - Enter the Matrix 9.5/10). (I looked on gamerankings)

[Brats]

Good comments so far from both sides .

Regarding the comment about the reader making their own adjustments, I think this is something that you only do with some experience of the title or of similar games from the same point in time. In the piece I mentioned Everquest and I believe it would take a psychic to predict what the EQ universe is like now based on a two year old review. You need that first hand experience imo.

On the comparison with film, although films made 70 years ago had less of the modern technology to play around with, the basic facets that make up a film (plot, script, pacing, cinematography, music) were all very well developed by that stage. You really have to go very far back to the era of Griffith and the other early silent masters to reach an era of film where you have to force yourself to appreciate the creative genius.

A game of five years ago will probably feel more dated than a film of fifty years ago.

I like the 'What's it Like Now? - Test of Time' idea. I can appreciate why you wouldn't want a review to be rewritten all the time, as the writing itself should be enjoyable.

I can understand the worry about the graphics whores, but then you'd help that a mature site's reviews would evolve with more than that.

[Brats]

Yeah, there must be a bunch of titles that were reviewed with indifference at launch but increased in relevance with time once the games were understood. e.g. P.N.03 3/10

Absolutely. It should be noted that this isn't an excuse to lower the ratings of older games. There are many games overdue re-appraisal. Personally I'd like to see modern opinions on the first Burnout which received fairly average reviews when it first appeared.

[Baseley09]

I think they are fine as they are.

Older reviews can be interesting, any reviewer should when approaching graphics should merit artistic style & design over technical marvel, and note as so.

[djjimbob]

You could also introduce widely held opinons about older games that perhaps were not evident when first reviewing.

Using Zelda - The Wind Waker as an example, you might like to add that sailing about like a plonker looking for triforce pieces might not be the best way to finish a game. An often espoused issue, but one which might not have changed the 10/10 that this website gave the game.

[Dirty Sanchez]

Something that may be included is an anthology type link, where a new idea/theme/control method is introduced and taken up, badly or otherwise, by other games.
Many of the retro reviews I read have many references to other games that have spawned into new games/genres.
Interesting to comment on how important or influencial a game actual was, quite often we hear the 'genre defining' tag and yet it seems the end of the line for the additions themselves, not a beginning. Example would be Killer 7, highly acclaimed but which game has taken this on further?

[Brats]

You could also introduce widely held opinons about older games that perhaps were not evident when first reviewing.

Using Zelda - The Wind Waker as an example, you might like to add that sailing about like a plonker looking for triforce pieces might not be the best way to finish a game. An often espoused issue, but one which might not have changed the 10/10 that this website gave the game.

I'm a massive Zelda fan, but that review imo is definitely in need of re-appraisal. It's a classic case of being caought up in the immediate wonder to the detriment of the actual quality of the game imo.

[Rsdio]

A game of five years ago will probably feel more dated than a film of fifty years ago.

I guess so, yeah. I was just saying how I personally treat them though, I realise a lot of people won't look at it that way. For the most part it's only the technology that changes so if you're not overly concerned with graphics it's not really a problem. I know it's not only the graphics you're talking about, but it's obviously the most noticable aspect when comparing games from different times.

If you take a really extreme example like Virtua Tennis vs. Pong, there's obviously huge differences there technology-wise but for me the enjoyment and experience I get isn't proportional to that difference. Obviously, I'd rather play Virtua Tennis, but I still feel that they can be judged against each other despite the huge strides made between their releases. Similarly, my opinion of Doom hasn't changed since playing Half Life 2 and I still go back to it. In many ways I prefer it, since I can play it without bloody stuttering

I don't think if you're the type of person to be reading reviews of games that are a few years old, you'll be the type of person to dismiss them based on presentation. What's be the point in looking for retro games if you were?

One thing I definately think reviews should probably be changed for is patches on PC games. Quite often (actually, scratch that, nearly always) you'll read a review of a PC game that says how great the game will be when/if a patch is released, but the reviews are never updated when patches come out so you never know how the game will actually play fully updated.

Got to say I'm not really on either side here, just trying to raise a few points and play devil's advocate a bit