Lewis Daisley wrote:Well you guys should seriously think about this review. I haven't played the original but you guys are basically saying "don't get the game" by giving a great game 65%. If not the original game should be better with the boosted graphics and a few more levels. How can you rate a game badly just because it is an almost identical port?
For starters, 65% isn't a bad score. 50% is average, ergo this game slots nicely into the "above average" bracket.
And ultimately, while there is no cast iron right or wrong way to review, or score, a port or remake, because a lot of what the player gets out of it depends on whether they've played it before, consider this. Should any remake with a few new levels or extras automatically get a higher score than the original? Or should the review take into account the fact that there is a original, and that you are weighing up which version of an almost identical experience to purchase?
The answer is, quite obviously, the latter. This'd be like expecting reviews of, say, Pokémon games to disregard the fact there's already numerous prior gens, or Galaxy 2's review to ignore the fact its Galaxy 2
, and not the original. The market, and expectations, changes everytime a new game comes out, so sequels, remakes or re-releases should be judged by what already exists. At the same time, the written content of the review should reflect and address that for the different playerbases of those who've already played and those who haven't, which Tom has done here.
In short, how can you rate a game "badly" when its an almost identical port? Because its an almost identical port.