by sigmazero13
Sphere wrote:
I think it's sad that people aren't willing to take Richard at his word that he gave the game a fair chance and reached his conclusions honestly. It's a cheap ass way to dismiss the opinions of a respected gamer who has contributed to the hobby for decades. Disagreement with his conclusions is fine, but slamming his integrity shows a lack of class.
His post never claimed he was giving it fair chance - only that he played it. I didn't see anything in the review that implied that he was expecting to like it (rather, the feeling I get from this review and previous posts was that he felt it was a long shot hope that he would).
I, for one, don't question his integrity at all. I don't think he was trying to hide anything, nor were his reactions knee-jerk. To him, and likely to others who share his feelings about the original game, the points he found were honest and true. But that doesn't mean he came into the game with a neutral mind. Based on his experience with the old game, I think he came into the new version with a mindset of "prove me wrong", and in his mind it didn't. That does not show a lack of integrity - that is certainly a valid way to approach something, especially a remake of something that you greatly enjoyed the original of. All it means is that his preconceptions were stronger and more defined than probably most, which meant, in its way, a less "forgiving" (for lack of a better word) look at how the changes impact the game compared to the version he enjoyed.
I can only speak for myself, but I stand by my earlier statement that the new version really didn't stand much hope of getting a positive review from him. That doesn't imply anything negative about his character as a person, gamer, or expert of the original game.
In short, from what I gather, I don't think he ever really expected to like it, and playing the game did not change his mind about that. And that's OK.