Are modern reviews of retro games pointless?

[dreamkatcha]

Would you get anything out of reading a recent review of an old game, or skip it because you know them like the back of your hand and so assume there's nothing new to learn?

If you were going to bother at all, is it better to read what an Amiga journalist had to say on the subject back in 1991 rather than what Joe Bloggs thinks in 2018?

If you wouldn't read a new-retro review, would you read a review of a brand new Amiga game you're not already familiar with?

[kriz]

I think its nice to read new reviews of old game (and of course new games), there was so many releases back then and some got overlooked or not appreciated the way it maybe should.. I would read it

[Gzegzolka]

To answer Your question - no.
In my humble opinion reviews are a good think if You have Your point of view and can present it in interesting way. Reading ten times how Superfrog or Lotus are the greatest Amiga games because they are most popular ones and everybody knows that too - is not fun. But if You can to present Your own opinion, point of view, with arguments that cool. If You can show us some trivia that no body found before that is even more cooler I love reading interviews and getting answers.

[McTrinsic]

A great example of retro reviews making sense (ok, sort of ) is the CRPG addict.

The reviews put the development of a whole genre into an amazing perspective.

[onkelarie]

they absolutely add value imho, if done seriously. It's great to find old gems that still stand the test of time

[Gordon]

I love reading reviews from the 90s just as much as I do from those written in 2018 and I appreciate them in their own right.

Are you dreamkatcha from amigos? If so I love reading your articles so would welcome reviews too!

[Seiya]

Sometimes reviews of old games in 2018 could be usefull to find again some forgotten games or see a different point of view than first reviews.

[Nobby_UK]

Would you get anything out of reading a recent review of an old game ?

No

If you were going to bother at all, is it better to read what an Amiga journalist had to say on the subject back in 1991 rather than what Joe Bloggs thinks in 2018?

No

If you wouldn't read a new-retro review, would you read a review of a brand new Amiga game you're not already familiar with?

Maybe, if no demo or VideoPlay is available.

[Foebane]

Why read a modern review when there's countless ORIGINAL reviews written in the popular magazines of the time, and most of them easily accessible on Hall Of Light/Amiga Magazine Rack?

[Seiya]

because 2018 reviews in many case are not the same of original review. Maybe now you read more personal opionion, more sincere review that it was not possibile in the past because many Software Hose count on commercial Magazine to sell their games.

[Foebane]

Originally Posted by Seiya

because 2018 reviews in many case are not the same of original review. Maybe now you read more personal opionion, more sincere review that it was not possibile in the past because many Software Hose count on commercial Magazine to sell their games.

You have a point there: I remember arguments occurring between software houses and magazine publishers because of the rating the latter would give the former, it was really political. If I remember correctly, most of the issues occurred with Amiga Power, due to their extremely harsh policy of giving lower scores to games compared with other magazines.

[Hewitson]

Absolutely not. Many reviews of the time were false as the reviewer would be paid to say a shit game was good.

[Photon]

I wouldn't mind it, but if I had ever played it I wouldn't read the review, ofc. Probably I'd just find a gameplay video on Youtube and not read reviews. There's just a big gap between a description (let alone trailers which are absolutely devoid of gameplay footage), and what the game is like to play. That's what I do now before I buy a game.

But: I think if you have (non-obvious) playing tips or strategies, or a story behind or around a game, then that would be worth following. There's also something to be said for reviewing underdogs: games that you think are good but wasn't a big success, or was overlooked, or where the reviewers "didn't get it".

[dreamkatcha]

Originally Posted by McTrinsic

A great example of retro reviews making sense (ok, sort of ) is the CRPG addict.

The reviews put the development of a whole genre into an amazing perspective.

I'm not familiar with him/her so thanks for the tip. I'll have to check out how they approach it and see what I can learn.

I've noticed one thing that works - developers talking about their own games and revealing development tricks and trivia that only they'd know. Former Travellers' Tales coder, Jon Burton, is a great example.

Originally Posted by Gzegzolka

But if You can to present Your own opinion, point of view, with arguments that cool. If You can show us some trivia that no body found before that is even more cooler I love reading interviews and getting answers.

Yes, I suppose passion and personal experience is far more important than a wad of old facts that most people are already familiar with. People connect with people, not textbooks.

Re: *new* trivia, I've found that often just gets buried unless you're going to make your entire video or article about that one single thing. Then it just feels like you're chasing newspaper sales like a slimy tabloid rather than producing something creative and worthwhile where the juicy stuff is just part of the wider picture.

I suppose my problem is I assume everything needs a beginning, middle and a conclusion and then it becomes a stodgy novel that no-one has the time or inclination to read.

Originally Posted by Gordon

I love reading reviews from the 90s just as much as I do from those written in 2018 and I appreciate them in their own right.

Are you dreamkatcha from amigos? If so I love reading your articles so would welcome reviews too!

The modern ones *do* have a few advantages I think - no space limitations, no time pressure, the benefit of hindsight, no influence from advertisers or editors, access to emulators and longplays etc.

Yep, that's me, thanks very much. That's nice to hear.

My stuff is supposed to be half retrospective/half review but I think the description angle tends to outweigh the opinion in most cases. I suppose the way it works is you review games you're passionate about and do documentary style coverage on the ones that just spike your curiosity, or someone has suggested you take a look at.

Originally Posted by Nobby_UK

No

No

Maybe, if no demo or VideoPlay is available.

I can totally understand that view and wouldn't hold it against anyone. I actually expected that to be the consensus. Games are an audio-visual experience, designed to be *played* after all.

I do think there's a lot you can't get from just playing the games, but then maybe you aren't interested in all the 'making of' stuff and whatnot, and there's no law that says you have to be.

I think it's interesting that the written review has survived as long as it has tbh. They came about because YouTube didn't exist and it wasn't possible to include a playable demo of every single release on the cover of magazines. Actually, going back before then they were a substitute for cover tapes at a time when they didn't exist. At one point they were the only way to find out if a soon to be released game was any good before buying it so people lapped them up.

Originally Posted by Photon

There's also something to be said for reviewing underdogs: games that you think are good but wasn't a big success, or was overlooked, or where the reviewers "didn't get it".

I really enjoy looking at games that haven't been covered on YouTube or in text format to make sure they get their moment in the spotlight when they deserve it, and in the beginning thought that would be popular, but soon had to change my tune.

I found that the obscure stuff isn't covered because people aren't interested in quirky PD games or games made by no-name developers who disappeared overnight after one release. What goes down well is licensed games attached to big blockbuster movies, even if people know the games off by heart. Familiarity is magnetic I suppose no matter what field you're dealing with.

I think the bottom line should be, do whatever you get a kick out of, and if other people dig it too, woohoo! If not you've amused yourself for a while. That's the beauty of not doing this for a living. You don't have to chase popularity. It's nice if thousands of people care about what you're doing, but you won't starve if they don't.

[Photon]

It just doesn't ring true for me. Do what you want, review the ones you like even though they're not super famous. Warhead, Globulus, Jupiter's Masterdrive, lots of 3D/sim/strategy/adventure games, games released recently which had no chance of getting the coverage old games did when it was absolutely crucial to buy the right game cos your monthly allowance was like half of what a game cost

At least I think if you go with your interests, you will never go wrong; it will always be time well spent. That's why I took a break from Amiga; I did other things because I enjoyed it more. If you had a good time, that's what matters and not whether others find it popular IMO.

The opposite of telling someone what to do and I just think it's so true and we'd enjoy ourselves if we dared do that more than we do.

[commodorejohn]

It's always fun to read when someone has something interesting to say about something, whether or not it's new. Plus, oftentimes I learn about things I'd never heard of before. Hardcore Gaming 101 is my go-to for that stuff.

[gjb1985]

I much prefer reviews of retro games today than from back in the day, because let's face it. reviews really sucked before the 2000s. no real structure. a lot of elements not mentioned or not told properly. way too short. too much focus on graphics.

[drHirudo]

New reviews are good because they look at the games from quite different angle, or even not seen/known aspect. For example before the HD become standard some magazines gave low scores to games because they were HD-only. Or they gave bad rating to 3D vector games, because the A500 1MB couldn't cope that well with them. But today you can play the games on 68060 speeds (Doom, Fears, Alien Breed, Quake). Or networked games that were unthinkable before now are pretty easy to set up. For example Sensible Soccer over network etc. Also some of the games have been patched, upgraded so a new review is always welcome.

[Seiya]

Today is more free to say what you want and say your opion about a software without the risk that you can offend Software House that years ago must sell that game.
I read many commercial reviews in Italian and English about "Microprose F1GP" and i never read about DOS texture mapping on F1GP. I always read: Amiga and PC version are equal. Of course not true and i discovered myself trying PC game.

i write a review about this game and little analysing this features tha lacks in Amiga version.

[dreamkatcha]

Originally Posted by Photon

It just doesn't ring true for me. Do what you want, review the ones you like even though they're not super famous. Warhead, Globulus, Jupiter's Masterdrive, lots of 3D/sim/strategy/adventure games, games released recently which had no chance of getting the coverage old games did when it was absolutely crucial to buy the right game cos your monthly allowance was like half of what a game cost

At least I think if you go with your interests, you will never go wrong; it will always be time well spent. That's why I took a break from Amiga; I did other things because I enjoyed it more. If you had a good time, that's what matters and not whether others find it popular IMO.

The opposite of telling someone what to do and I just think it's so true and we'd enjoy ourselves if we dared do that more than we do.

I agree totally. There's no point spending time producing a video/article on a subject you don't care about just because you think it will go down well. In fact, if you aren't interested it's far less likely to strike a chord with the people who do care because they'll see through it as a money-spinner as so many YouTube channels are once they become mainstream and start chasing ad revenue.

I've covered all the bases personally, whatever appeals at the time whether it's an unknown PD title or a major release that everyone knows. My main criteria is, can I squeeze a decent article out of it? Is there anything beyond the superficial stuff to explore? The backstory, trivia and tangents interest me far more than what's on the surface, which doesn't need any explanation anyway.

Yeah, taking a break from the Amiga altogether sounds like a good idea and one I've often thought about. It's pretty crazy when you stop to think of all the time we spend on this hobby that has absolutely no bearing on the real world. I mean, you wouldn't go into most offices and strike up a conversation about the Amiga or any of this nerdy stuff we discuss here, yet if we spent the same time reading about current affairs or what's going on in the local community, or watching a blockbuster movie, we'd have something to discuss, a means of connecting with flesh and blood people.

I'm not saying this is worthless, just that it should all be about balance, and when it's not it can be very isolating. Here endeth the 'thought for the day'.