By Penelope 16 Comments
I'm not a very consistent person. This is especially so when it comes to my opinions. This especially struck me today as I was glancing over some of the reviews I've written here on Giantbomb.
...what am I doing?
I've been trying to work out in my head exactly why I give games the scores I do and why that leads to some of these bizarre anachronisms.
I think I've arrived at the opinion that reviews, just like the games themselves, encapsulate an idea or opinion at the time they were written.
I played Diablo when it first came out, and like everyone else, it blew me out of the water. Back then? 5 stars. Last summer though? I think now... well to put it simply, I would be just as inclined to replay Lucidity as I would be to replay through Diablo. Time hasn't been especially kind to Diablo, and Lucidity has had the benefit of more than a decade of game design refinement that makes it much more polished and less clunky despite its other flaws. This is especially apparent when comparing something like Diablo to other games from that era that have aged significantly better.
So when I give Diablo three and a half stars, I don't think I'm really saying its a "three and a half star" game. Giving it five stars because it was amazing when it came out, despite its obvious flaws now, also feels disingenuous though.
I think for me, reviewing old games is an exercise in seeing how they hold up and where I would put them on my scale of enjoyment nowadays.
What about you guys? How do you go about comparing or reviewing old games?