The Jman made a very sensible suggestion, that we review Doom. I’m not entirely sure why i’ve skirted around that one – I’ve covered the iD milestone immediately before, the next two after and even a 3rd-party game using its engine. Maybe it’s just a reticence regarding such a huge name in gaming; there must already be many “10\15 years later” retrospectives out there. Probably deconstructing Doom’s significance in great detail.
It will see coverage at some point – although just to be perverse I’ll probably do Heretic beforehand. For now though, I’m focussing on something long-overdue…
you must gather your party before venturing forth
Posts
We’ve never done anything in the right order. But I think you’re right in that we don’t tend to gravitate towards the famous global smash hits quite so much as the spin-offs and less heralded games (even referencing said smash hits in our reviews of these games).
Not sure why – perhaps it’s that thing about wondering what your viewpoint adds to the 10 million other reviews and pages of analysis that are already out there. I’m pretty sure no-one came here to find out what we thought of Half-Life.
I had been weighing up a review of GTA III – it’s older than some of the games we’ve covered, it’s definitely something I’ve spent a lot of time playing, but at the same time, so much has been written about it already. I guess what we offer is a slightly more sober ‘when the fuss has died down’ perspective. But is that enough?
Also, rightly or wrongly, I’ve always seen GTA III as the representation of a ‘modern’ game, making it always ‘too new’. But then I find myself working on Midnight Club 2, which is a good year newer, and uses a modified GTA engine, wondering why I didn’t cover GTA III first as I’ll be referencing it throughout the review anyway…
Hm, comment getting longer than original post. Better stop.
April 15, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
Heretic is in my gunsights as well. Or wandsights. Or whatever. Been trying to get through at least the second chapter before putting anything to text. So far, not as bad as it has been made out to be. Some interesting graphical tricks they added.
I know nothing about Baldur’s Gate (I think that’s your reference?) so that would be of particular interest to me.
As for writing articles about established titles, I feel as long as you have a balance of common and overlooked, then nothing should be discouraged. If it keeps you interested, that’s one thing. I’d rather write about a popular game than not write anything at all. Second, it can act as a gauge for newcomers to see if your interests are compatable, and if they can trust your other reviews for games they’ve never heard of. Third, if you have someone’s respect, they’ll be interested in seeing how you personally felt about a shared game, and if you have a different take on it. I’ve never skipped an FFG review simply because I’ve played the game (or even reviewed it myself) before.
April 15, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
Baldur’s Gate – our very own "Chinese Democracy". If we review it this year then it’s free Dr Pepper for everyone.
Another reason to review a popular game – they normally (but not always) tend to be quite good. You can spend a lot of time trying to find an underrated gem or a overlooked diamond. Average or below-par games can still be quite interesting to cover (or to bash) but at the end of the day it’s not what we’re into this for.
GTA3 is a possibility then. However, I think I’m in too deep with Midnight Club 2 to turn back now…
April 16, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
Jman: that’s a good point about reviews of popular games being something by which new readers can callibrate their views against ours.
And yeah, writing about stuff just for our own interest, or to keep up momentum in the review process, is fair enough also.
I like to think we have a pretty good balance of popular vs obscure (Puma World football doesn’t even have a mobygames page!).
April 19, 2009 @ 4:03 pm