You can't teach an old game new tricks

Can reviews of old games become inaccurate or ‘wrong’ as the medium evolves?

The PC version of this game has a very positive 89/100 on Metacritic (based on 32 reviews). Fans like it even more, with some 249 ratings bestowing an average score of 9.1/10, yet this is one of the worst games I’ve played recently. The level design is bland, the AI is unfair, the difficulty is too high and the story arc is unbalanced. While there are glimpses of good writing and a few innovative ideas, it still pales in comparison to nearly every other video game today.

[wallis]

Okay - proof read your god damn articles if you're going to even pretend to be a "writer" of any kind. You forget to mention the game (max Payne) in the first sentence rendering this entire article a terrible exercise in confusion - how hard is it to read the fucking article you just wrote? Or better yet! Give it to a friend!

Movies get magazines and red carpets and video games get journalists who don't even proof read their work.

[Ben_Giff]

Typos generally don't invalidate articles, and everyone makes them. I intentionally left the game's title out of the paragraph because I wanted to describe it for readers without bringing in their biases.

Edit: I'm not really sure what you're talking about. I went back to proofread (a second time), and added a comma and changed two words.

[jeeves86]

You can't really review a game by today's standards. You always have to take into consideration the fact that it's an old game, that the technology that powers our games has changed dramatically. So to put it bluntly, you could have said that Max Payne has not stood the test of time.

Incidentally, if you wanted to be descriptive, describe the title and its characteristics in the first two paragraphs. If people have to read halfway through the review just to get the title of the game you're reviewing, it becomes a chore rather than a pleasure to read. And then people get mad. Just look at our friend wallis up there.