Comparative Analysis

Comparative Analysis

            The game I chose to compare reviews of was the game called Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time.  The traditional review was pretty much what I expected it to be, a general overview of some of the positive and negative aspects of the game.  The author discussed things such as game play, graphics, audio, and then gave the game an overall rating.  Luedkte gave examples of negatives within the game such as, “However, seldom as it was, there were times when gigantic enemies that were too large and skilled to spring over would surround the Prince and the camera would pop over to a very unfavorable angle, such as behind a pole or wall.” (Luedkte, 2003)  When comparing this type of review with that of a work of new games journalism, this criticism of the game seems frivolous.  Although this is important information for consumers, the technique of new games journalism tackles the game from a totally different perspective that analyzes the game from a deeper level other than saying “the graphics look good”.

            The piece of NGJ that I chose was first published in Edge magazine in 2005 and approaches the game from an interesting angle.  The author discusses how unique Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time really was from a design standpoint.  The author touches on the expectations that most gamers have when they sit down to play a video game by saying, “But gamers have been trained for years to mistrust cut-scenes; what gamers trust is action. And so, once they gain control of the prince, the bedroom and the tale-telling is dismissed or forgotten. Shrugged off as a hackneyed narrative device for setting the game's fantastical scene.” (Edge, 2005)  This insight alone shows a great deal of understanding and may even shine light into the eyes of game developers.  But Prince of Persia comes back to surprise the gamer by making this opening cut scene more important than initially thought.  Later in the game the gamer finds that all the action that has been performed over the past few weeks is actually something that has been erased by time and the opening scene is the tale of what the gamer actually experiences.  The author of the article also expresses some sadness in the fact that games didn’t end up following the artistic trends that were set by this game.  “By resuscitating a stagnant genre - the 3D platformer - it formed a blueprint for how to build a future for games on the very best foundations of the last 25 years, of how to streamline and modernise everything that's precious in gaming's heritage. And yet, now, time seems to have reset. Now, it seems unlikely to have the influence it deserves, and the proof of that is evident in its sequel, Warrior Within.” (Edge, 2005)

            When comparing these two pieces, the difference between the two styles becomes crystal clear.  While the traditional review serves a purpose to consumers it lacks the in depth analysis that the new games journalism pieces provide.  I have never played Prince of Persia: The Sands of time, but after reading the article in Edge, I feel as though I have played the game.  That fact in itself may be why reviews are done in the traditional sense because I now have no reason to play the game.  I know what happens, I understand the plot on a deep level and no longer feel the need to spend time on it other than to see the graphics.  But I truly appreciate the analysis provided in the Edge article, some may say it is an over-analysis but I tend to over-analyze many things including video games.  Traditional reviews may be boring but they provide a service for consumers and new games journalism provides an insight into the real messages that games portray to the gamer.

Works Cited:

Luedkte, John. "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time Review." Gaming World X 2003 Jan. 4. 2008

"Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time." Edge February, 2005 Jan. 4. 2008 <http://www.edge-online.co.uk/archives/2005/02/prince_of_persi.php>.