In this thread, Mike Holmes gives an evaluation of 5th-edition Hero System, and Ron Edwards follows up on the review with a summary of the history of the development of the Hero System from its roots in the late '70s through the present day.

Which got me to wondering: Is it possible to fully evaluate a game without regard to its origins and the history of its development? Can a game be taken at "Face Value" and judged on its own merits? Is doing so even valid? Or is it necessary to view a game holistically, taking into account the developers and the climate of the hobby at the time of development? As Ron points out, it is difficult for him to talk about the Hero System without considering that game's rather complicated history.

Personally, I am of the viewpoint that context doesn't matter, and a game should be, whenever possible, viewed (and reviewed) in isolation. But that's an idealistic viewpoint and obviously it isn't always realistic to expect that.

Thoughts, anyone?
Ethan

Hi Ethan,

I'm an historical dude, overall. In some of my reviews, I try to place games into the context of others, sometimes all the way back the 70s.

Barring "this is good" or "this is bad" kind of non-thinking statements, I have a hard time imagining how a game would be evaluated without some basis for comparison, either with contemporary games that have similar content in some way or with games that apparently contributed to or paralleled the design features.

Best,
Ron

It seems to me that there are a couple of issues here, and it may be that a game has to be reviewed both in context and in isolation.

If you're looking at a current edition of a game, the question for the new gamer must be confined to the book itself. A lot of people who have never played any version of D&D are looking at D&D3E; to them it doesn't much matter that half-orcs are suddenly much uglier and more recognizable than they have been in the past, or that alignment is not mandatory, or that the system has been entirely revamped. They want to know how it will work completely on its own.

But for me, I've played a couple versions of the system and read a couple others, and it matters to me what changes have been made. Even for a player who has been running a 2E game for the last few years is going to want to know whether he should stay with what he knows or switch to the new game. In that sense, the context of the history of development is going to be important.

The context is important in another sense. There are those who claim that D&D3E is just Ars Magica in a new package. I don't know how much the one owes the other, but it is certainly the case that new games often borrow from older ones, and don't always represent improvement. If a game gives us nothing new, it might be important to say what other games already did what this attempts, and in what ways they were better.

--M. J. Young

Is it a question of looking at it from a development point of view compared to at it from a consumer point of view?

When looking at the history of the game, you would look at the creative process, and the inputs the development team had at the time. I think you could argue that you're looking 'to be fair' to the game's developers, and teach people a little about games design as well as the game in question.

When looking at the actual game, and ignoring its history, you're looking at it from a consumer's point of view, will this be fun to play? Here, you would compare a game to its contemporaries.

But I agree with Ron, there always has to be some sort of context.

Jeremy

I think that history is interesting, but has no bearing on how a game will actually play. When reviewing a game, I am only interested in how well it works, here and now. The furthest I'd go is to note in the case of an old game that the designers can be excused as they built it long ago, and at the time there wasn't anything better. You can't have expected more.

But that doesn't mean there isn't now. And I am perfectly happy to reject a system because it's age has made it obsolete.

Mike

Poor word choice on my part. Yes, context is essential. When evaluating a game, one must always consider the context in which the game is presented. (Context in this case referring to such things as socio-political atmosphere, the game's target audience, stated goals of the game, how it is advertised, etc.)

What aren't essential, in my view, are:
- Comparison to other games
- Information pertaining to the game's development
- Information about the authors of the game

All of these things, while of course interesting, are not necessary, and perhaps detrimental, to an evaluation of the game. I disagree that designer intent and especially comparison to other systems is a good thing.

But, unfortunately, we're talking theory (and possibly semantics) here, so it's all moot anyway. Just something to think about...

Ethan