Apparently, there's a rule in the gaming criticism handbook that I somehow missed: if a game comes out, say, 15 years after it begins development, you're supposed to review it based on the standards of the era during which it was originally planned to come out. 

At least, that's the latest load of crap Gearbox co-founder Brian Martel has been spouting off to the media. He's a little unsettled by the unsavory reviews garnered by his company's latest output, the infamous vaporware Duke Nukem Forever. I've posted before on the absurdity of Forever's production time, so I don't need to reiterate the legend it became before finally seeing release. I'm more concerned with the absolute sense of entitlement reeking from Gearbox and Martel.

Martel argues that the game was not reviewed fairly because it's very much a product of the generation in which it began development. That kids these days just don't understand what old-school FPS games used to be like. That it's 'vintage' or 'retro' somehow. He claims that Half-Life would be reviewed badly these days too and it's just not fair that his new game was held up to the standards of the year in which it saw release.

Now, complaining about poor reviews is a childish move no matter what your medium, but let's engage with that argument nonetheless. Yes, Martel, you're right; the original Half-Life, if repackaged and renamed and re-released today, absolutely would be panned. Critics probably wouldn't even touch it because any jerk with basic rendering software, some programming skills, and a lot of time on his hands could make that game in his parents' basement these days. It was revolutionary when it came out. In the '90s. Two decades ago. Valve since made even more revolutionary games that further evolved the industry. They moved forward. They brought everyone else along with them. 

Maybe Duke Nukem Forever began in the '90s, but it sure didn't end up there. It was born, finally, as a thrashing, desperate attempt to reinvent a franchise. The thing with long production times is that you have to make sure they're worth it. You have to actually produce a game that's been building up to the present moment. A whole decade passed between Fallout 2 and Fallout 3, but when the third one finally hit shelves, it sure as heck wasn't a top-down pixilated role-player. It was the result of ten years of real labor and talent. It was held to the standards of the day it came out and it surpassed them.

You're whining, Martel. Stop it. You made a boring, offensive game that is now famous only for the novelty of its origin story. The critics were as fair to you as they are to everyone else. Quit your flailing and move on.