It's impressive, and it's absolutely valid to think about how something is made when you're reviewing it.
If you think "all that matters is what's in the game itself and torch all knowledge of anything else" is the way reviews should be, game criticism is doomed – we should all just pack it in, and not bother writing anything that isn't a simple pro/con lists and component scores. That's a dark path.
I disagree. It doesn't matter how big the dev team was, in every AAA release do you think they need to say how large the team size was or where it was made? I don't think so. It's obviously impressive, but it doesn't change the fact of the game as a product. In some cases it can be good knowledge, because Stardew Valley is still technically in development with the multiplayer mode coming later, but a game having a smaller team doesn't instantly make it better because it was harder to make. I'd focus on judging the game for its merits.
Mentioning that it is a one man band is fine, but regurgitating it over and over, in a review is not right. Yes this should be excluded from being important in a review, as a review is about the end product, not the journey to get there. Games criticism is larger than the actual review, and that's where talking about a one-man team is appropriate. You can have editorial, or whatever... but for a review, yes I disagree and stongly feel that the team behind the game is wholly irrelevant.
Cibele should not be seen favourably because the one lady made it, but rather it involved her highly personal experience.
What next? Game of the year is decided by how big a game budget is? What resolution the game can go upto? (4k woohoo!!)
Why is a smaller team better than a larger team?? THAT may be worth editorial. You could argue that a larger team (AAA) makes a much better game just as successfully perhaps.
Thus, this is irrelevant in a review.
Subjectively you may respect the game more because it was made by one person, but objectively it does not make the game any better. This is not the same as discussing price, or length of gameplay, as it has NO factor on the game as a product... FOR REVIEW
Edit: I've gone through the review again and Dan only makes a point of the one man team 3 times. Less than I thought. Let's blame that on the fact in addition to those times he talks about the creator a few more times, but you could swap that out for a development company name with no change, thus being a sole creator the tone shifts a little.
Let's just say I think there is a bit too much pandering (towards the one-man thing) being put in a review for a game that should probably stand tall (I haven't played it - so from what everyne is saying about it) regardless of whether 1 or 100 people were involved.
Nowhere in this review does Dan say the game is better because it was made by one guy. You have no idea what you're talking about. There's no harm in stating a fact about development.
This site is so insane sometimes. It's video game reviews, it isn't that serious. Even if you had a valid point (you don't) it wouldn't matter to anyone. I don't understand all the effort to try and nit pick and meaningless bullshit. But that's been 99% of GB comments for the last couple of years, yours just happen the be the one ridiculous enough to make me comment myself.
Ugh, are you guys really not going to finish this game in time for GotY? I mean, I get it, but fuuuuuck this game at least deserves to be in the conversation even if it doesn't make the staff list. Squandered all that time on those "Choose Our Own Adventure" episodes.
This is bumming me out so much.
Agreed. I really feel like they should've scheduled this in better.
Jace's comments