|
First of all, let me just say this: when talking about favorite games of the year, I can only talk about stuff I’ve played. I missed a number of titles that came out this year because of scheduling conflicts and budget considerations, so I don’t want anyone to look at me and say, “Why did you forget X?”, because I might not have had a chance to play it. People might claim that PC gaming is dying, but there’s still more than I have time to play floating around out there.
I can also only talk about things that came out this year. If we included stuff from previous years, I’d probably vote The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim because I like how it plays with the recently-released DLC. But we’re talking about a game I’ve been playing since last year, with a little bit of content from this year. So, I can’t vote for Skyrim, even though it was a late entry last time around. And if I suggest an MMO, someone might ask me how it compares to World of Warcraft: Mists of Pandaria, but I won’t have an answer because I have stayed far away from WoW. Not out of any hate; it’s just not my cup of tea.
 I also have to consider that it’s becoming increasingly meaningless to talk about games as if they’re static titles that get patched, but never really change their content. We had a lively discussion about DLC earlier this year, but the upshot is that half the games I reviewed this year aren’t even the same now as they were when I reviewed them. Star Wars: The Old Republic has added a ton of good content and interface/gameplay improvements. Worms Revolution has new DLC available. Warlock: Master of the Arcane has had some major improvements via patches, along with some new DLC that adds some gameplay. In short, it’s becoming increasingly more difficult to apply comparative criteria to most PC games because they might be getting better or worse over time.
This also doesn’t factor in the relative merits of various genres. We don’t even have time to open that can of worms.
 So, with all of that said, I will claim that Crusader Kings II is my favorite game of the year. I’m still playing it after several months (a good sign). The new content has expanded the game in great ways. I get more emotionally invested when playing it than I do most games out there. It is, at the end of the day, more than worth the cost.
But if I broke it down by genre, I’d have to say I still prefer Star Wars: The Old Republic as my MMO of choice. I haven’t been lured back to Lord of the Rings Online, even with the release of the Rohan expansion. While SWTOR‘s free to play now, I find running around the stars with a blaster or lightsaber by my side to be good fun, even if I don’t get the time to complete as many flashpoints and operations as I would like.
 As for indies, I enjoyed Resonance this year, but as far as off-the-wall games that are entertaining is concerned, I have to say I enjoyed Slender: The Eight Pages. It’s been a very long time since I’ve played a game that could elicit real fear. The last time I truly felt fear, as opposed to just a desire to shoot and kill enemies, was when I played the Colonial Marine maps on Director’s Cut difficulty in the original Aliens vs. Predator back in 1999. That was a game I would refrain from playing in a darkened room.
As for FPS games, I haven’t played one since the start of 2012, so all you Call of Duty fans will have to tell me if you really liked the new one on PC or not.
|
So they’ve patched up Warlock, have they? I remember being intrigued by that one when I first heard about it and then disappointed when the reviews said it fell way short. I know what you mean about patches and DLCs, and mods make it an even fuzzier call on what constitutes a “last year’s game”. This is why I stick with the PC – with consoles, what you get is what you get 99% of the time.
“I also have to consider that it’s becoming increasingly meaningless to talk about games as if they’re static titles that get patched, but never really change their content.”
Very true. Especially in the ephemeral PC realm, this can make reviews utterly meaningless. Does a launch review of Team Fortress 2 hold any meaning anymore? Does a review of a MMO offer any help after the first patch of many? Even more, how can we best post reviews for things like this? Update with a later review? Emphasize the time-stamp? Post everything on a scrolling twitter-feed that eventually erases itself?
I’ve been thinking for a while about the notion of review timing. I think there is — or ought to be — a market for the “second pass” review.
For example, when a game first launches, much of the time you get the sense of “This is great! It’s new and shiny and wonderful!” But play it a month or two more and suddenly the shine is off and you start seeing the real flaws in the game which have yet to be addressed. Or, a patch has been released which dramatically alters gameplay.
I don’t know about other folks, but generally speaking when I buy a game, it’s gonna be one I intend to play for a while. I take my time on single player games, frequently, because my gaming time is limited, and split between games usually. Multiplayer games are a different kettle of fish, in that they typically don’t reveal all that’s good or bad right out of the gate. It takes time playing with stuff (particularly games with obnoxious “unlock” systems) to really see that, for example, the USAS-12 plus 12G frags and an IRNV is a clearly broken unbeatable combo in BF3….until it got patched.
So, I’d say it might be worthwhile to institute a new column. Something like “One/Two Month(s) Later…” This might not work so well with review schedules, since that’d require longer-term gameplay (which might be difficult if you’ve got a deadline for that other review), but seeing as how you guys do admit to playing games in the meantime, maybe have folks write their post-shiny-phase impressions of the game.
Frankly, for all the breathlessly excited and positive reviews I see on other sites about the latest AAA title to come out that same day, after playing a lot of them for a month or so, I can’t help but wonder what those reviewers would say (well, if they weren’t shills, that is…) if they wrote another review after the fact.
Particularly in a changing gaming industry chock full of microtransactions, ongoing DLC packs, patches, etc., perhaps the gaming review industry needs to adapt to a more longitudinal approach to reviews. “Here’s my Day-0 review. And here’s my Day-60 review.” We also often complain about company support (or lack thereof) with games, so given that you’re almost buying a SERVICE now rather than just a PRODUCT, maybe some reviews of how well a game’s being supported would influence people’s decisions.
I’ve been giving it some thought, and it occurs to me second pass (or second chance) reviews carry some interesting pros and cons.
On the one hand, some games, and MMOs especially, are so dynamic in terms of new content and changes that they are practically a different animal within six months. We would all agree on that.
On the other hand, this industry thrives on hype. And hype isn’t just about talking up a game. It’s also about being first with a news scoop or first with something neat. So, you can’t be first AND be in depth AND see if a game ages well.
I have been an off-and-on game reviewer (mostly “off” these days; I just don’t have the time anymore) for more than a decade. When I first started reviewing games, I would review the game as I received it, straight out of the box; no patches unless they were needed to make the game run on my PC (or at least to make it stop crashing so often).
A good example of this would have been Outpost. I never reviewed this one, but I’ve played it, and when it shipped it was missing nearly half of the features in the manual. This was a combination of two factors: First, manuals have to be sent to print before the game is actually ready for release, so they’re ready to ship. That’s the reason why you sometimes see mistakes in the manual… something changed after the manual was sent to the printers, but before the game shipped. Second, they lost their lead programmer and management basically said “take what you’ve got, get it working, and ship it.” Eventually Sierra came out with patch 1.5, which added some (but not all) of the missing features to the game.
Now, assuming I *had* reviewed Outpost, and Sierra asked me to review it again with the 1.5 patch installed, I would’ve refused. “Nope… too little, too late. I’ve already reviewed the game I received. I’m not going to waste my time reviewing the game it should have been.”
These days, I’m starting to come around to the “second pass” point of view. Here’s the quid pro quo… I would only consider second pass reviews *if* the DLC adds a significant amount of content or alters gameplay in a significant way. I think we can all agree that you wouldn’t do a second pass of a game just because they added some new costumes. Adding another 10-20 hours of play, however… well, that’s different. But unless the reviewer kept his saved games, or has continued to actively play the MMO, or whatever, his avatar may not be experienced enough to access the new content; and that’s where you run into the problems Jason mentioned. There’s simply no way to guarantee your “second pass” would be first AND be in depth, because another reviewer that DID keep his saved games, or continued to actively play the MMO, could get to the new content first.
Post a Comment