How should reviewers review remakes?

I have been meaning to write about this topic since I started blogging many, many years ago, and certainly I have had more than enough opportunities to do so. I have written about video game reviews extensively in the past, though for different many reasons, none of which involve remakes. And so before I begin, I would like to ask you all one simple question: how should reviewers review remakes?

How much water is too much water?

First, a bit of background on the whole “too much water” ordeal. Last month, Nintendo released two Pokémon games: Pokémon Omega Ruby and Pokémon Alpha Sapphire (remakes of 2002’s Pokémon Ruby and Pokémon Sapphire on the Game Boy Advance). IGN’s review of the games, written by MyIGN’s very own Kallie Plagge, gave an overall positive but somewhat critical assessment on the games, especially concerning how well the games have aged relative to more recent Pokémon titles. Below is a direct quote form the review:

“However, as a remake, it does represent a big missed opportunity to fix several significant balance issues and mechanical problems — the difficulty I had going back after playing the much more modern Pokémon X shows how far Pokémon games have come in 12 years.”

The review gave the games a 7.8/10, compared to the near-perfect 9.5/10 the two original names received over twelve years ago. Obviously, the internet overreacted (as it does with many things) and made a meme out of one of the reviewer’s primary criticisms. Nonetheless, it does beg the question: how should reviewers review remakes?

A look back at Pokemon Ruby and Sapphire on Game Boy Advance.

Let me first briefly go into detail as to why this debate exists. There are essentially two different audiences for a review like this: those who have played the original game(s) and those who have not. The former group is looking for a reason to “rebuy” the remake, either for nostalgic purposes or simply because they want to give the game a second chance. The latter group is looking for a reason to pick up the game for the first time. This presents an interesting dilemma for the reviewer, as he or she can only fall into one of these two groups. Thus, the attempt to be all-inclusive ends up muddying the review and the reviewer’s opinion gets misrepresented.

In the specific case of Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire, readers seemed primarily to be concerned over the rather large discrepancy between the scores for the remakes and the scores for the original games. Depending on who the reader is, several questions may arise:

• Are the remakes actually worse games than the originals?
• Were there things introduced into the remakes that resulted in an inferior experience?
• Should gamers who have played the originals still purchase the remakes?
• Should gamers who have not played the originals play those instead?
• Was the essence of the original game preserved in the remakes, and if so did it contribute to the relatively negative tone of the review?

Wind Waker HD made a multitude of gameplay tweaks to the original.

This whole debate can probably be summed up as one of temporal relevancy. In other words, should the game be reviewed based off of how well it emulates the experience of the past, or should it be reviewed based on the context of today’s gaming landscape? The answer you get may be different depending on whom you ask, because different people will have different wants and expectations. Some people want the past preserved – in which case “too much water” would not be a bad thing because it accurately represents a primary characteristic of the original games – while others want it changed to the standards of the present – in which case “too much water” would be a completely valid criticism. The reviewer may opt to address these elements, though the resulting “dual” perspective will likely raise the same questions I listed above. From a developer’s perspective, satisfying both wants can be very difficult, but that is a blog post for another day.

Consequently, one question that reviewers must ask when rating a remake is whether or not improvements should be expected. Whether you like it or not, no remake is exactly like the original game. Another issue is one that comes naturally with games released years after their originals. A games published over a decade ago was likely reviewed by a person who has no longer holds that position. This poses a problem for the current reviewer; should he or she ever use the original review as reference? Readers will naturally compare the two reviews regardless of what the reviewer says, which makes it impossible for the reviewer to isolate his or her opinion from that context.

Considering all of these issues, one may wonder if there is anything we can do fix it. A simple solution would be to have multiple reviewers review a remake – specifically one who has played the original games and one who has not. I do not mean having two writers co-author a review; that adds to the confusion of the review and does not solve the problem at hand. Rather, I mean to have separate sections written by separate people catered to each audience, such that they are easy to find for those just looking for a second opinion. The problem with this, of course, is the amount of extra man-hours it would take, which while would not likely take too much time, prevents it from being a fully viable solution. And even then, not every issue stated above has been solved.

IGN experimented with multiple authors in their Sonic Generations review.

The point is, I do not believe that there is a “right” way to tackle a review of a remake, or any review at all for that matter. Each reviewer is different, and that is doubly so for remade games. It is my hope that readers understand that. Critics exist to critique, but simply having an opinion is usually not enough. There are issues at hand that one must keep in mind when writing a review like this, and oftentimes it is simply impossible to check all the boxes and satisfy everyone.

So MyIGN, what do you think? How should reviewers tackle remakes? Leave your thoughts in the comments below!