Ultimately any review is going to be subjective, boiling down to 'how much did I enjoy playing this game?'. Whatever other questions a reviewer may ask, it's that one which will determine what score they give. A better reviewer will do more to ensure they address as many objective criteria as possible, but that gut instinct is something that will never go away.
Personally I would review the game based predominantly on what the EE adds. That's because firstly BG is already a release, available for purchase, and secondly I have a quite a good understanding of the original game, so I'm alive to what's new and enhanced. It's important to note that many reviewers will either not have played BG (so it's all new to them) or alternatively will have played it a long time ago, and so will be hazy as to what exactly is new -so will be more inclined to review it as a whole game.
There is some confusion with enhanced edition in that it's a term that, I think it's fair to say, was most famously employed by CDProjekt with the Witcher. In that case the EE's came free and were essentially just very big patches. I don't recall encountering EE's too often before that.
A great deal of credit has to go to Overhaul in having the inspiration and innovation to revisit a classic game like Baldur's Gate, and make it approachable for modern audiences (whoops going into reviewer territory)...but the point is that there isn't really a yardstick or template for reviewing a project like this, so it's all the more a case of reviewer judgement.
@ajwz, reviews are generally of limited utility in evaluating how objectively good a game is. However as others have said above, they bring commerical success (or failure). The reason is that a lot of people will buy a '9' as a great game they have to play, but will overlook a 7, so it has to make quite a noticeable difference in the eyes of undecided players. Going with that, I think there are very few people who will admit to buying games (or not) on the basis of review scores, especially not people who have taken the time to register on the forum! (although I may be wrong). The fact is that beyond the hardcore, a significant number of sales will come almost exclusively from the review scores, no-matter what difficulties there are in actually reviewing the game.
-----
If my opinion is worth anything (which it's not), I'm a little ambivalent. There are a great number of new features (it seems from Trent's tweets and BG:EE page) but there's also a fair bit to be disappointed about.
The biggest stumbling blocks for BG:EE I think are these: -Lack of depth of interaction between NPCs and none being added (we'll see if the new one's have more) -Limited enhancement to existing content (a number of areas suffer from being quite sparse, but we've been told very little tinkering with that. Similarly the quests in BG1 don't have as much depth as some players may have come to expect (especially if they've played BG2 but not BG1)). -Perhaps overly rigorous attention to the original BG rules (e.g. in not balancing kits or spells) -Ambition, it's rare that greats get revisited, some reviewers may be unhappy that more wasn't made of the opportunity, even if the BG:EE is excellent.
I'm not mentioning good points because I don't think we've seen enough to comment yet (but support for higher res, zooming, new ui, new music, several hours of new content per new npc all look good).
I'm personally expecting the game to get between 7 and 8 out of 10 from most major reviewers, with a few things which could happily tip the balance into the 9s (or heaven forbid 6s or lower!), those are:
-How good the new UI is, and how much it improves gameplay over the original -How well the Black Pits stand up will make a very big difference (a cheap add-on or a thrilling self-contained adventure) -How much the multiplayer is improved/enhanced. We live in an age of incredible interconnectedness and 'sharing' via social media and...other forms. BG is an epic story campaign, and it's rare that games let you go through a plot like that together, good multiplayer is always a 'big tick' box (and in my opinion it needs only a few small things to make a big difference/much better). -How long, or short, the memories of the reviewers are (if they have played modded verisons of BG, e.g. with BGT and widescreen mod etc, they may be less impressed than rose-tinted glasses reviewers -How much they like Overhaul/Trent, not too much it seems, not many articles on BG:EE on the big sites.
I know this is probably too much to ask from a review site, but I think they should have two reviews. One from someone that plays/played BG1-ToB vigorously and knows the mechanics, easter eggs, etc. And someone that hasn't played BG or not very much. That way we get both sides of the review from both noobs and pros alike.
Whenever I look at a professional review I skip to the negative points. After all, I should know what the best parts of the game are; they would have been the focus of the game's advertising and interest. What I need to know is where they fell short and how much it impacts gameplay.
For a re-release like this the negative points that would serve as warning signs (although I did pre-order mine) would be bugginess and if the new UI looked anything like the screenshots we've seen. Other than that it's all gravy.
@ScarsUnseen Sorry what? Most websites have a "best positive review" and "best negative review" as voted on by people. I have seen that work essentially flawlessly. It's what I use.
I see your point, but who honestly looks at user reviews with zero discretion? It doesn't take a genius to sift through crap and see the reviews by thoughtful, honest folk.
@ScarsUnseen Sorry what? Most websites have a "best positive review" and "best negative review" as voted on by people. I have seen that work essentially flawlessly. It's what I use.
I see your point, but who honestly looks at user reviews with zero discretion? It doesn't take a genius to sift through crap and see the reviews by thoughtful, honest folk.
It is really hip right now for reviewers to wine about remakes and sequels. Most are hesitant to touch specifically on any aspect of games with strong fan bases on games they do not really understand. Even the negative ones by trade sidestep any of the big conserns the consumer might have if it is an awaited release with hot button topics. So, however they can keep street cred without actually expressing an opinion on any part you care about other than it's factual presence or abscence in addition to a dissmissive overall response is probably what you are going to get. "Good at price point, and I dare say little else as I do not want to be political here".
Say what you want about fevered vocal minorities, but in the binary situation of "will I still be playing this in 3 years or will it's purchase put a sour taste in my mouth" I have consistantly found them to be quite reliable. I do not feel as strongly as they do, but far as "yeah or nay" they are quite reliable over individual reviewers I do not vibe with.
There's a number of "ifs" that will determine for me whether the game truly feels "enhanced":
If the higher resolution makes the game look noticeably sleeker. If the zoom feature works nicely. If the new GUI looks and feels nicer. If the new NPCs are well written and voiced, with fun quests. If banters between old NPCs and new NPCs (and between new NPCs) are fairly frequent and entertaining. If the Black Pits is on par with, say, Durlag's Tower.
If (most of) these things are true then I will be very pleased. And I would imagine reviewers will be too.
But even if the above results are meh, it's still a win to have the game available on modern platforms and playable on future OSs for under 20 bucks. But unless the "enhancements" are tangible and succeed, the game won't get sterling reviews.
@HeroicSpur My earlier misgivings were mostly based off the last part of your list. I don't hate Trent Oster or Overhaul Studios, but I feel like there's a good chance that for one reason or another, they won't be able to make BG:EE live up to its original counterpart (and not only lose a lot of money by putting all of their eggs in one basket, but also greatly lower the chance that other developers will try to make old-fashioned cRPGs as well). They cannot afford to fail and I'm still not entirely convinced that they'll be able to pull this off. That's not to say that he has good intentions in trying to revive interest in the Baldur's Gate series, but good intentions alone won't get you very far.
@ramagons Unfortunately there is a clear correlation between review scores and sales, so obviously the majority of consumers do care. Reviews may often be a bunch of BS, but they are a bunch of BS that people pay attention to before shelling out cash.
quickly read the study so I might have missed something but that looks like an anchor effect.
If so they could have obtained similar results by showing participants unrelated game reviews or even if they asked them--the participants--to write down the last digit of their ssn! Mine is zero, for example, and so one could predict that my rating would be lower than the average. That serious the anchor effect is strongest when the anchor is conceptually associated with the "ship".
our judgements are affected by a lot of things we aren't aware of. It's quite scary really.
Anyway there is also another factor: the success of a game reviewer depends on the success of the games they review as well as the companies that make these games. if you, as a critic, always tend to give low reviews those games-- "your"games--will tend to have lower sales, lower demand, etc and as a result you will have less "hits"on your site, less "clicks" on your ads etc and you will also potentially gain a reputation with makers (e.g. would you give an interview to a "hater" or worse someone that was unreasonably critical of your earlier work?) This is not to say that there won't be "haters"but a prediction (haven't looked at any numbers) that they won't be as successful.
Of course "symbiotic"has deceptively positive connotations. I'm not so much thinking about game reviews here but, for example, the relations between politicians and special interest (and the finances required to "grease the gears"so to speak)
Of course "symbiotic"has deceptively positive connotations. I'm not so much thinking about game reviews here but, for example, the relations between politicians and special interest (and the finances required to "grease the gears"so to speak)
There are going to be 2 types of reviews: 1) Reviews by people that will compare it to modern graphics and gameplay, so the reviews will be very low due to poor graphics and "confusing" gameplay. 2) People who review it as it is and to what it was before and have nothing but great things to say about it as it is an improvement in every way, except they may be upset that the graphics were not enhanced further, which was impossible to do.
Comments
Ultimately any review is going to be subjective, boiling down to 'how much did I enjoy playing this game?'. Whatever other questions a reviewer may ask, it's that one which will determine what score they give. A better reviewer will do more to ensure they address as many objective criteria as possible, but that gut instinct is something that will never go away.
Personally I would review the game based predominantly on what the EE adds. That's because firstly BG is already a release, available for purchase, and secondly I have a quite a good understanding of the original game, so I'm alive to what's new and enhanced. It's important to note that many reviewers will either not have played BG (so it's all new to them) or alternatively will have played it a long time ago, and so will be hazy as to what exactly is new -so will be more inclined to review it as a whole game.
There is some confusion with enhanced edition in that it's a term that, I think it's fair to say, was most famously employed by CDProjekt with the Witcher. In that case the EE's came free and were essentially just very big patches. I don't recall encountering EE's too often before that.
A great deal of credit has to go to Overhaul in having the inspiration and innovation to revisit a classic game like Baldur's Gate, and make it approachable for modern audiences (whoops going into reviewer territory)...but the point is that there isn't really a yardstick or template for reviewing a project like this, so it's all the more a case of reviewer judgement.
@ajwz, reviews are generally of limited utility in evaluating how objectively good a game is. However as others have said above, they bring commerical success (or failure). The reason is that a lot of people will buy a '9' as a great game they have to play, but will overlook a 7, so it has to make quite a noticeable difference in the eyes of undecided players. Going with that, I think there are very few people who will admit to buying games (or not) on the basis of review scores, especially not people who have taken the time to register on the forum! (although I may be wrong). The fact is that beyond the hardcore, a significant number of sales will come almost exclusively from the review scores, no-matter what difficulties there are in actually reviewing the game.
-----
If my opinion is worth anything (which it's not), I'm a little ambivalent. There are a great number of new features (it seems from Trent's tweets and BG:EE page) but there's also a fair bit to be disappointed about.
The biggest stumbling blocks for BG:EE I think are these:
-Lack of depth of interaction between NPCs and none being added (we'll see if the new one's have more)
-Limited enhancement to existing content (a number of areas suffer from being quite sparse, but we've been told very little tinkering with that. Similarly the quests in BG1 don't have as much depth as some players may have come to expect (especially if they've played BG2 but not BG1)).
-Perhaps overly rigorous attention to the original BG rules (e.g. in not balancing kits or spells)
-Ambition, it's rare that greats get revisited, some reviewers may be unhappy that more wasn't made of the opportunity, even if the BG:EE is excellent.
I'm not mentioning good points because I don't think we've seen enough to comment yet (but support for higher res, zooming, new ui, new music, several hours of new content per new npc all look good).
I'm personally expecting the game to get between 7 and 8 out of 10 from most major reviewers, with a few things which could happily tip the balance into the 9s (or heaven forbid 6s or lower!), those are:
-How good the new UI is, and how much it improves gameplay over the original
-How well the Black Pits stand up will make a very big difference (a cheap add-on or a thrilling self-contained adventure)
-How much the multiplayer is improved/enhanced. We live in an age of incredible interconnectedness and 'sharing' via social media and...other forms. BG is an epic story campaign, and it's rare that games let you go through a plot like that together, good multiplayer is always a 'big tick' box (and in my opinion it needs only a few small things to make a big difference/much better).
-How long, or short, the memories of the reviewers are (if they have played modded verisons of BG, e.g. with BGT and widescreen mod etc, they may be less impressed than rose-tinted glasses reviewers
-How much they like Overhaul/Trent, not too much it seems, not many articles on BG:EE on the big sites.
Ooohhhh how one can dream...
For a re-release like this the negative points that would serve as warning signs (although I did pre-order mine) would be bugginess and if the new UI looked anything like the screenshots we've seen. Other than that it's all gravy.
I see your point, but who honestly looks at user reviews with zero discretion? It doesn't take a genius to sift through crap and see the reviews by thoughtful, honest folk.
Thoughtful honest folk doing user reviews?
On the internet???
Who knew?
(insert snarky smiley here)
If the higher resolution makes the game look noticeably sleeker. If the zoom feature works nicely. If the new GUI looks and feels nicer. If the new NPCs are well written and voiced, with fun quests. If banters between old NPCs and new NPCs (and between new NPCs) are fairly frequent and entertaining. If the Black Pits is on par with, say, Durlag's Tower.
If (most of) these things are true then I will be very pleased. And I would imagine reviewers will be too.
But even if the above results are meh, it's still a win to have the game available on modern platforms and playable on future OSs for under 20 bucks. But unless the "enhancements" are tangible and succeed, the game won't get sterling reviews.
My earlier misgivings were mostly based off the last part of your list. I don't hate Trent Oster or Overhaul Studios, but I feel like there's a good chance that for one reason or another, they won't be able to make BG:EE live up to its original counterpart (and not only lose a lot of money by putting all of their eggs in one basket, but also greatly lower the chance that other developers will try to make old-fashioned cRPGs as well). They cannot afford to fail and I'm still not entirely convinced that they'll be able to pull this off. That's not to say that he has good intentions in trying to revive interest in the Baldur's Gate series, but good intentions alone won't get you very far.
Edit: but the biggie is always going to be BG3, and you're right that failure of BG:EE could be dire for that future.
If so they could have obtained similar results by showing participants unrelated game reviews or even if they asked them--the participants--to write down the last digit of their ssn! Mine is zero, for example, and so one could predict that my rating would be lower than the average. That serious the anchor effect is strongest when the anchor is conceptually associated with the "ship".
our judgements are affected by a lot of things we aren't aware of. It's quite scary really.
Anyway there is also another factor: the success of a game reviewer depends on the success of the games they review as well as the companies that make these games. if you, as a critic, always tend to give low reviews those games-- "your"games--will tend to have lower sales, lower demand, etc and as a result you will have less "hits"on your site, less "clicks" on your ads etc and you will also potentially gain a reputation with makers (e.g. would you give an interview to a "hater" or worse someone that was unreasonably critical of your earlier work?) This is not to say that there won't be "haters"but a prediction (haven't looked at any numbers) that they won't be as successful.
ultimately it is a symbiotic relationship.
1) Reviews by people that will compare it to modern graphics and gameplay, so the reviews will be very low due to poor graphics and "confusing" gameplay.
2) People who review it as it is and to what it was before and have nothing but great things to say about it as it is an improvement in every way, except they may be upset that the graphics were not enhanced further, which was impossible to do.