I think the other major reviews of this are just as bad. And since Monkey Island's remakes got good reviews it really just comes across as saying Sierra game design no longer works.

Which honestly... well... I was always more of a Lucasarts fan, I'll put it that way.

Still with infinite money now being available and the deaths loading you back to right where you were, I think the game has already been modernized as much as anyone should want.

The game is obviously a delight to those who enjoyed the original game, so what does the score of the review really matter? By modern adventure game standards, the original is, from what I've read, apparently rather atrocious - inevitable when it was one of the first games of its kind, as design evolution used Leisure Suit Larry as a starting point.

To someone not acquainted with the original, the game is an interesting recreation of the past, but it's likely no longer what one would consider to be a "good game". Note that I haven't played the game myself, but I feel that there is a need to admonish people for using nostalgia as an argument. There is no need to rationalize the score; that things usually don't age well is undeniable, and what matters is that one personally enjoy the product. There are any number of games in my library I have fond memories of, but which I will admit were more fun when they first came out, or have flaws that I know are hard to forgive if you are not used to them.

Finally, the Monkey Island remakes received good scores because, well... there's a reason they're still used as the templates for adventure game design. The extra features of the remakes were well thought-out, too; the hint system in particular helped elevate the games by smoothing away the few vague and frustrating puzzles in each title.

Therefore - he's an idiot.

I'm 34 and never played a LSL game. :) By the time I got a computer (1993), LSL6 was released. Thats most of the series already missed. Plus, I'm not a fan of adventure games, never have been. I haven't played most PC adventure games from the 90's because of that. I did buy the LSL pack here when it was on sale though. I do want to play it eventually just to check it out - more for the purposes of gaming history than anything else. Plus it was cheap.

I didn't read the review, don't put much trust in IGN and already know I won't be getting the game, but maybe he is just not an adventure game fan. Probably shouldn't have been chosen as the reviewer then. That would be the fault of the editor.

Is it a newly created game, released only this year. running on modern computers, sold at a modern price? Because I don't think judging a modern game by modern standards is quite as outrageous as you seem to. As someone who didn't play or care about the early Sierra games, I want to know if this game, being released now, is worth playing compared to other games, being released now, that I could be playing instead.

Nah, I wouldn't just lay the blame in a situation like that on the editor. I've worked as a critic for a couple websites in the past. Critics on sites like that beg to review certain content and beg off reviewing other content. Granted, you don't always get what you want, but the editor doesn't *want* a biased review. If the reviewer wasn't an adventure fan, then he would/could/should have said something. That is, unless he wanted to wanted to give it a negative review, which again would fall on him.

I don't tend to agree with quite a few reviews...so if something looks interesting to me 99 times out of 100 I'll get it sooner or later and decide for myself...

This...well, I loved the originals so this make over will certainly be taken for a test drive at some point :)

And, personally I think its stupid he never played the originals yet talks about gameplay and references being dated...how would he know if he's not played the original..? And it really does sound like he doesn't like adventure games to begin with, hardly an unbiased reviewer then :p

I guess my perspective is that, no, it is *not* a newly created game. It's like saying that the Prince Of Persia or Ratchet and Clank or whatever HD collections that have been released in the past couple years were "new" games. And when the critics reviewed them, they didn't say "these games suck, they should have added a ton of new content and completely rewrote the game to be like today's games" No, they said essentially, these games are what they were, they were great games back then, now slightly upgraded to be played on your current systems. They had this and that issues back then and they still do now, but if you liked those games back then you'll like these new versions.

I agree about the save scumming; there should of been a better way to earn money in the game.

I also agree with the complaint on the lack of animations. I would give it a 5. Sadly I didn't enjoy this game like I hoped I would as the "humour" just wasn't funny.

Reviews can't be done from a particular point of view; doing so means that they become useless as reviews, as they fail to be relevant to the majority of the readership. None of these reviews are saying it's a bad remake; they have some issues with the cut corners, and they think that the developers should have done more, but as a translation of the original game, it does its job well. What they are objecting to is that the game simply isn't good by today's standards. If one were to pick up pretty much any other adventure game from the last year and compare it to Larry Reloaded, then it's a near certainty that Larry Reloaded, by comparison, wouldn't be "fun".

As I said in my earlier post, it doesn't matter what the reviewers think as long as you're the one having fun - but trying to rationalize the score is, quite frankly, not a healthy thing to do. Swallow your pride and accept that things change. Asking for review scores that only conform to your opinions is bizarre - opinions are subjective, and no opinion can be said to be more correct than another.

Ahem. Sorry, I'm not ranting at you in particular. I read the comments section of the GameSpot review and I've been chewing on that for a week now.

Agree to disagree. I think perspective is important as a critic. You don't criticize Schindler's List because it didn't have enough CGI effects, and you don't criticize The Silence of the Lambs because it didn't have enough romance. This game did not have a large budget and never intended to add to the original game, you can't penalize it for that.

Here we've got Double Fine going ridiculously over budget and delivery date creating a game not only bigger than they initially planned, but bigger than they can even afford with all of the additional money that they gathered beyond what they first budgeted. And people are crucifying them for it. Then we have the Larry team who did exactly what they said they were going to do with the budget they were given, and we're criticizing them for that as well. {sigh}

I think the problem with the review is this: there were two questions to be answered, and the review only answered one.

1. Does the core gameplay stand up to adventure games released today? (For people who have never played the original, and are looking for a new adventure game.)

and

2. Will fans of the series/original game be pleased with this remake?

I think the review answered #1, but didn't address #2.

Everyone who sits and rationally thinks will be forced to acknowledge that what is basically a reskin of a 26 year old game (Larry 1 is eight years closer to the moon landing than it is to present day) will have mechanics that have been refined and improved in the last quarter of a century of adventure games, making the original seem crude and clunky by comparison.

However, a simple reskin with a touch of additional content that runs well on today's computers might be exactly what fans were looking for. If I was a fan, I wouldn't have found that info in this review, and would have been disappointed.

I still think the review is relevant however, since rose coloured nostalgia reviews aren't really that helpful in knowing whether or not I should plunk my hard earned cash down for a copy.

Seems the reviewer has gotten to use to having his hand held all the time.

Hey if you thought IGN's was bad check out Eurogamer today.

Hooooooooo boy.