It's funny h ow some things are perfectly acceptable in some genres are inexcusable in others. For example, entire Max Payne 1-2 games are designed so you would die often and quicksave and quickload often. And somehow, these two were major hits anyway.

It's kind of difficult for the review to address #2 when the reviewer never played the original. It's kind of hard for a reviewer to address both #1 and #2 at the same. To try to do so would be dishonest. That's why there are multiple review sites, multiple reviewers. A single review can't be all things to all people.

I think the main problem with the review is that the reviewer doesn't make it clear that he never played the original. Otherwise it is a useful perspective for many people, who have also never played the original (including myself) [not that I personally give a shit what IGN says about any game, but you know what I mean].

I never understood why so many people think that video games should judged objectively and be devoid of any subjective judgement. You don't see this with film, music, painting, photography, etc. or any other form of art/entertainment so it baffles me.

Just because something is unambitious doesn't mean that reviews should be more lenient.

I have to say also, that somehow I disagree with both of the above statements.

I don't think there anything wrong with judging something by modern standards, but there is also nothing wrong with wanting something more old-school. There is a different audience for everything.

Leisure Suit Larry is a niche game. That's why it went to Kickstarter. It's not mainstream. So don't be surprised at negative reviews in the press. It was never meant to please everyone.

Exactly. It's a love or hate game. And the reviewer hated it. What's wrong with that?

I'm not sure whether you're arguing for or against me, but in case I failed to make it clear, I am arguing against the artificial imposition of a particular viewpoint on a review. Reviews are by nature subjective; viewing a particular product through a specific lens is tantamount - nay, equivalent - to special pleading (look it up), and makes the review worthless, as it removes the basis for comparison with other reviewed products by forcing objectivity on subjectivity.

Did that make any sense? I fear I may have tangled myself up there. I hope you get the gist of it, anyway.

So it should at least state, that this game was never promised to be anything better or more than it is.

Why should Wadjet games receive a 1/10? Do you think they're that bad? Why would they get 1/10 by today's standards? The story is good, the art style is awesome, the music's pretty good, the puzzles are logical. Why would it get 1/10?
I don't understand why "old-school" games somehow can't be reviewed by 2013's standards. Let's take a look at Legend of Grimrock for example, it's an old school game and I love it, I even wrote a review for it for my personal blog, but I wrote it by today's standards and I still gave it a good score.

why should "old-school" automatically mean you can't reviewe it by 2013's standards? Last time I checked, there's little to no games like Legend of Grimrock these days and the style it uses is better if you want a more methodical style of gameplay, something you can't really find in say... skyrim

WadjetEye games (those I've played) don't have any of the clunkiness or illogical puzzles of LSL. I like Larry and it delivered exactly what was promised. But let's face it, if they wanted to make a game that stands up to modern standards then it falls short in ways that WadgetEye games don't.

You're not seriously comparing the wadjeteye games to LSL reloaded?

While they may not get 9/10 by today's standards, doing a direct comparison to LSL would surely result in a conclusion that the best wadjeteye games have better graphics, music, story and puzzles than LSL reloaded.

Well, people say LSL doesn't meet today's standards because it lacks in animations, character deaths and money grinding is inexcusable and some other stuff.

One could say WadjetEye games don't meet today's standards because they run in 640x480 and have sub-par voice acting .

Also, you can't say pixel arts graphics is something that meets today's standards, unless you want to be picky and say something that comes from an old adventure game remake is outdated while something in newly created adventure that looks exactly like an old adventure game is not.

And I've heard many people have technical problems with Wadjet games as well.

In short, a game should be reviewed by standards it's aiming to meet, not by some arbitrary "modern" standards.

Oh God, I am just about completely sick and tired of all the internet social justice/sexism white-knighting in video game-related stuff right now... Some people are just unable to put their personal political beliefs on one side when talking about games.

It's almost as if these people don't give a shit about games, and instead just use them to pontificate on their politics.

Also: The only decent game reviews are on RPGCodex

Agreed and you know the reason is not to pontificate on their political views, its to just get ratings and views and comment posts. Don't believe me?

Evidence:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/no-right-answer/7611-Americas-Greatest-Obsession-Ever

Well yeah, it's shameless to see even RPS doing all that sexism link-baiting too.

Agreed.

RPS are even more annoying than the rest because they address the complaints of it being too much for a gaming site and say "fuck you social justice is more important than games." Maybe so, but your site isn't fucking cnn.com.

ugh.

poor animation, bad puzzles and money grinding are inexcusable. that was acceptable in the 80s when I had no other choice (and I loved sierra games whether there particularly bad puzzles), but not today. most good adventure games are past that.

many great modern games have pixel art, and they look great. that is acceptable by modern standards. again, resolution is irrelevant if the game looks good, that is acceptable by modern standards. the voice acting in wadjeteye games is fine.

adventure games don't need to have the same graphical fidelity as fps games because its unnecessary. they need to look decent, however. the puzzles need to be good as well, and thats where LSL reloaded is (somewhat) let down.

how are you supposed to review a game by some subjective standard the dev is trying to meet. "No, I can't get 6/10, I was intending to make a game with poor animations and puzzles, therefore I should get 10/10".

They answer is, give it the low score it deserves, but say, if you are looking for a remake of a pretty average game from the 80s, this is for you.