The lights are on
Power Member - Level 8
The gaming industry is steadily moving forward, always. New games come out, followed by another batch of reviews. Those reviews get put out, then it's on to the next game. This cycle repeats itself on a never ending loop. While big gaming sites can keep up with everyone thanks to a strong team of gamers, what of the rest of us? Obviously, no one person can review every new release single handed, and what of the time they get it out? Is there a certain time everyone should have their reviews online for a game? 2 weeks after a release? 3?
The thing is, that we think that by that time, everyone who cares has already seen a review, and they probably have. However, there are a number of reasons I feel that posting late reviews still has purpose. Even with retro games generations back.
First, though we may initially think that everyone who is going to get it will have gotten it after a certain time, it's not entirely accurate. Not everyone will pick up a game within the first weeks, and others will still be on the fence about the purchase. For that reason, I don't see anything wrong with posting late reviews. There's bound to be at least a small audience that will find it relative.
I feel this is even more so with retro games, which I myself review upon completion, as I still play a lot of older games. I feel that these retro reviews have even more purpose than reviews that are weeks late. Sure, not everyone will be willing to go back to older systems to play, but there is a huge library of great games from that past, that deserve nothing more than to be remembered and replayed. Perhaps you've never played the game, and you're missing out. It's never to late to pick up an old game. Online websites are full with great deals on older titles. Not to mention, a lot of the big reviewing companies only go back to a certain date in history with their reviews, so in some cases, retro reviews can be scarce.
If you are trying to keep up with your reviews it can be discouraging at times. If you give yourself a certain deadline, you likely not to spend your time playing and enjoying the game. I played through Darksiders II with the intent of getting a review out as soon as possible and I came to find that I didn't really enjoy the playthrough. Sure it's different if its your job, or something you committed to, but why rush through games otherwise. I'd rather enjoy the game to it's fullest, know exactly how I feel about the game, then post a solid review.
So, I see little reason to not post late reviews. whether it be weeks late, or years, I still think there is a benefit. Sure, it wont be relative to everyone, but sometimes even knowing another's opinion can be interesting. I encourage people to continue to review older games, as there are several great ones that some people may not know about. And take your time with current game reviews.
But what do you think? Is there a point behind posting reviews late beyond the games release month? or year?
I absolutely agree that posting late reviews are beneficial in their own ways. It's a great chance to flex your writing muscles as well as an opportunity to tell others what you thought of a certain game.
Retro games definitely deserve new reviews. Gaming has changed so much in 20 years that it's important to get fresh perspective on a game. For instance, a game like Final Fantasy VI (3 in America) is a great game, however I warn my friends that it is quite easy to forget to save and run into a monster that can easily set you back a couple hours. As well as quite a few unexplained systems in the game. Not explaining a combat system or of the like nowadays would lead to mass confusion, whereas back then it was about the norm.
Overall, current reviews even when late help give a time appropriate thought on something that can change.
Personally? Unless you are funny or add something new (think like Sequilitus or some other vids like that), I'll never care about older/late reviews, ever. If someone posts a review of, say, Mass Effect 3 in January of 2013, I'll never read it. It serves me no practical purpose to me. Reviews are helpful when something has just come out in my book. If a review 6 months after the theatrical release of Cabin in the Woods won't do jack for me and more than likely isn't going to add anything ground-breaking that 15,000 other people haven't already said by then. I'm sorry, but I really don't have the time to care about what everyone says about XXXX game after it stopped being being relevant XXXX months ago. Too many things to keep up with.
Same with Retro reviews. Sure, I guess some people care about them and it can make a nice way to compare new and old and be retrospective. Usually, it's not the case.
Absolutely. A review weeks or even years after the release can benefit someone. Whether it is someone who just bought the game due to a price reduction, or just the interested customer. If just one person sees your review, just one... then you know that it was worth it. That's just my opinion.
As someone who posts late user reviews all the time, I still defend the right to post years old game opinions. Even for me, I find that it really helps my game purchasing decisions. for games that you've either been disinterested in or curious about for quite a long time. Actual fans of certain series should know 1st hand how something is and I still find it insightful years after. It especially helps to see how people think a game's aged over time too. Great subject for debate!
I support Retro Reviews for the reasons you specified. I love sharing my gaming past with others. I also enjoy digging up titles I missed playing. I've lost track of how many old games I've gone out and bought because someone waxed nostalgic about them.
Posting late reviews helps both the reviewer and the one reading it for this reason: it actually can help you locate bad parts, times in wich content promised on release is not there( yeah the protean mission in Mass Effect 3 was cut from the main disc in order to have some sort of day one DLC, turned out to be some time), you let the illusion that the game is perfect behind and actually start seeing the faults. And finally, you get to enjoy more the game you are playing, and you get to defend it better.
I'd have to agree with Blake; I don't think I've read a single review posted after the 2nd week a game's been in the wild. But that's more or less because I'm a day-of or week-of purchaser. I suppose for those that are waiting a month or more to pick up the title, late reviews would still be relevant, but on the whole I think those initially hesitant gamers are checking out that first run of reviews to see what people think. My mind is generally made up after the staff review anyway, but if I'm still hesitant, the only reviews I read are within those first few days. Actually, it's probably safe to say that 90% of the time, I'm not looking past those first few days of reviews. I see your point definitely, especially about retro games, but new releases, at least in my opinion are scouted out early on.
But I'm definitely with you about the rush to review. I rushed through Black Ops II to get a review out ASAP and I felt like I didn't even really get an opportunity to just soak it all in. Ditto with Dishonored. But since I'm of the mind that nothing outside of the first few days is really relevant, in terms of viewership, I probably won't stop rushing through some of em'. The bigger games I generally don't even bother posting actual reviews for, just because by the time they're finished, people are on to something else entirely. I skipped actual reviews for Borderlands 2 and Assassin's Creed III, simply because by the time I finished them no one was even paying attention to any of the reviews; they were on to Black Ops II or Far Cry 3. I generally just post blogs about those big games, skipping an actual review. So I'm with you halfway at least. Rushing to review definitely glazes over the experience.