I think people are getting way too worked up about this review. Regardless of when Doom II originally released, they released it as a new game recently and if somebody who doesn't know anything about Doom II wanted to learn about it - it's probably important to know that it's an old game with early 90s design. If you already love Doom II then you know what to expect and don't need a review.
Doom II: Hell on Earth
Game » consists of 19 releases. Released Oct 10, 1994
After the events of Doom, Hell has found its way to Earth. The last living scientists develop a plan to evacuate what's remaining of the human race with enormous space ships. Unfortunately, the demons have taken control of the only spaceport, and it's up to the nameless space marine to take it back.
Gamespot's Doom 2 Review
" @vidiot said:At the end of the day, the real question for game reviewers regarding old games is what criteria they are basing their opinions on. Yes, it goes without saying that Doom 2 is an antiquated mess in comparison to modern games, and aside form online support over XBLA, this is another port of Doom 2 that doesn't really do much of anything to differentiate between the countless other ports." Now you all feel like I did a few years back when this happened. All I can say is: Welcome to the club. "I bet that 6.5 score really hurt your enjoyment of a game you already apparently really like, too. Damn Gamespot raping our childhood games so they can't be enjoyed anymore! "
Thus the double standard and sheer confusion falls into place. The first Doom XBLA port didn't do anything new either, yet it got a higher score than this. By contrast, Marathon 2 had, one can easily argue antiquated design too, (although at the time of it's release it was revolutionary, these concepts of historical context was glossed over with most reviews.) yet also had an HD overhaul. Yet it scored poorly to the game that was ported with barely an iota worth of improvement.
To say that review scores for old games is a convoluted experience is a huge understatement. I actually blogged about this once, the amount of debate is pretty substantial. Yet I believe this little comic pretty much sums up many people thoughts.
If you don't feel that these games need reviews then I have a really simple solution for you - don't read them. Then, for all practical personal purposes, they don't even exist. This just seems like such a stupid thing for anyone to get their panties in a bunch over. You like Doom II and Marathon, sweet, no one's stopping you from buying or not buying what you like, these reviews don't affect you in any way. For those who haven't played the originals these reviews may or may not be helpful (I don't read Gamespot anymore so I couldn't say). IGN's review of Final Fight Double Impact helped me decide on whether to buy some games I never originally played all those years ago, and I'm glad I got Double Impact and I'm glad IGN reviewed it with an eye towards whether or not a guy like me might like it by today's standards." @BionicNinja said:
" @vidiot said:At the end of the day, the real question for game reviewers regarding old games is what criteria they are basing their opinions on. Yes, it goes without saying that Doom 2 is an antiquated mess in comparison to modern games, and aside form online support over XBLA, this is another port of Doom 2 that doesn't really do much of anything to differentiate between the countless other ports." Now you all feel like I did a few years back when this happened. All I can say is: Welcome to the club. "I bet that 6.5 score really hurt your enjoyment of a game you already apparently really like, too. Damn Gamespot raping our childhood games so they can't be enjoyed anymore! "
Thus the double standard and sheer confusion falls into place. The first Doom XBLA port didn't do anything new either, yet it got a higher score than this. By contrast, Marathon 2 had, one can easily argue antiquated design too, (although at the time of it's release it was revolutionary, these concepts of historical context was glossed over with most reviews.) yet also had an HD overhaul. Yet it scored poorly to the game that was ported with barely an iota worth of improvement.
To say that review scores for old games is a convoluted experience is a huge understatement. I actually blogged about this once, the amount of debate is pretty substantial. Yet I believe this little comic pretty much sums up many people thoughts.
"
Reviews like this are written for situations like that, they have no bearing on you or your enjoyment of classic games you already played and loved. If whoever owns the rights to A.T.A.C. suddenly put out a port of the game on XBLA I wouldn't give a damn what Carolyn or anyone at IGN or Giant Bomb had to say about it, because I'd know I was gonna pick that sumbitch up the day it hit the marketplace.
Why all these Doom II fans feel the need to whinge about some site they claim to despise giving a low score to a game they already know they love is beyond me. Makes me think some folk have too much time on their hands.
" To say that review scores for old games is a convoluted experience is a huge understatement. I actually blogged about this once, the amount of debate is pretty substantial. Yet I believe this little comic pretty much sums up many people thoughts.Exactly what I wanted to post.
"
Log in to comment