I have a simple question to pose: Can and should a video game be judged purely on it's own merits?
For those of you confused, let me explain and clarify. As I sit here thinking, I have just started playing Dragon Age 2.I havten't come to any decision on my own as to how good the game is yet since I'm only about an hour or two in, but something curious has happened. Knowing that it's a Bioware RPG I instanly recognize the story/mission structure, who is important or will be returning to the story, and am instantly familiar with the conversation wheel. Essentially, I've played this game before as it seems like it's going to be uniquely similar to every other Bioware RPG.
However, after I stopped playing the game, I (unconsciously) decided that I was going to evaluate the experience thus far, and to get a broader perspective, I decided to look at what some other people were saying about the game as well. I pulled up a couple reviews (from both professional and non-professional reviewers) and I kept seeing them say that they were going to give their review based on the games own merits.
This is where my question comes in. I can understand evaluating a standalone piece of work, be it video game, book, painting, or whatever, on it's own merits. But when you constantly introduce new pieces that strikingly resemble, if not out right copy, your previous work, then can it really be graded simply on it's own merits? Shouldn't the merits of the pieces of work that came before it be re-evaluated as well? After all, even if you are passingly familiar with those works, they influence your judgement of the current work. And in the case of Bioware, where essentially all of their games are the same with a different coating and minor tweaks, shouldn't those necessarily be taken into account?
For those of you confused, let me explain and clarify. As I sit here thinking, I have just started playing Dragon Age 2.I havten't come to any decision on my own as to how good the game is yet since I'm only about an hour or two in, but something curious has happened. Knowing that it's a Bioware RPG I instanly recognize the story/mission structure, who is important or will be returning to the story, and am instantly familiar with the conversation wheel. Essentially, I've played this game before as it seems like it's going to be uniquely similar to every other Bioware RPG.
However, after I stopped playing the game, I (unconsciously) decided that I was going to evaluate the experience thus far, and to get a broader perspective, I decided to look at what some other people were saying about the game as well. I pulled up a couple reviews (from both professional and non-professional reviewers) and I kept seeing them say that they were going to give their review based on the games own merits.
This is where my question comes in. I can understand evaluating a standalone piece of work, be it video game, book, painting, or whatever, on it's own merits. But when you constantly introduce new pieces that strikingly resemble, if not out right copy, your previous work, then can it really be graded simply on it's own merits? Shouldn't the merits of the pieces of work that came before it be re-evaluated as well? After all, even if you are passingly familiar with those works, they influence your judgement of the current work. And in the case of Bioware, where essentially all of their games are the same with a different coating and minor tweaks, shouldn't those necessarily be taken into account?
