You'd be surprised. I remember being literally shocked while reading a review of Suikoden 2 in EGM that dismissed it both by score (a "7") and by text. I had absolutely no idea what the hell game that person was reviewing, but the game's gone down since as one of the best of that entire generation, and one of the most sought-after titles on the used market. That's pretty common.

I'd say that this sort of thing is MORE important for smaller titles, though. The Mass Effects of the world will be fine. People will pour absolute torrents of words into the maw of the Internet on those titles. They'll also be re-adapted and remade, so there's little chance that people won't have access to them later.

Smaller titles are the ones that won't get remade or "remastered", and which are either ignored or dismissed by the Big Publications that are chasing short-term hits. They're the ones that really need proper critical analysis, because people just won't understand what they're like or why they might be important unless somebody who's played them actually explains it.

(That's why Let's Plays are vital, too. They're arguably an even more valuable form of critique than written criticism, since they're commentary and demonstration all in one go.)

So don't feel the need to apologize or justify. This is important work. Not because it evaluates, but because it explores and describes. THAT'S what people need.

Yeah, this is kind of how I feel. I actually don't really read reviews that much myself any more, though that is more due to the fact that I know my opinions tend not to match up with what a lot of journos think.

The game I'm currently reviewing is a case in point: it's been panned by the few publications that have reviewed it already, but I'm rather enjoying it, despite its obvious and recognisable flaws. This may be something to do with the fact I'm unashamedly smack-bang in the middle of its target audience, though. 🙂

Said game probably won't be particularly historically relevant in the big picture of gaming history, but it is at least interesting, and I want to give it some credit for trying, at least, even if its not altogether successful in everything it wants to do.

These days, though, I really think that an eye should be given to history. If reviews don't affect buying, they might still be relevant years down the road. The reviews for games like Mass Effect 3, Diablo 3, and SImCity will affect how people think of the entire process of games criticism simply because they got so lost in the excitement of the moment that they completely failed to predict how reactions would ultimately stand. It serves as a marker for how "AAA" games can capture the imagination in the short term yet disappoint after.

At the same time, write-ups for historically relevant games might have to stand in for actual play experiences, since game-creators seem bound-and-determined to make their wares technologically inaccessible after about four years or so. There are a lot of 360 games out there that will be unknown in the future outside of how people *reacted* to them, since the platform will be functionally obsolete and they won't be lucky enough to get the remake treatment.

(Same thing's already happened to the Saturn. You can't PLAY Panzer Dragoon Saga, but you can READ and WATCH Panzer Saga)

So, hey, don't fret. Your review might still be relevant. Just make sure it's around in about 20 years or so. Then you're golden.