'Reverence and nostalgia are not criterion for reviews, nor should they be' opens IGN's recent review of the remake/release/reboot of Bungie's infamous Halo - Combat Evolved. It's a line which achieves the rare honor of provoking my disapproval literally with the writer in question's opening sentence. Of course, no game should be lauded purely on the grounds of nostalgia as to allow such would be to mislead gamers who never enjoyed the original incarnation into thinking there's a must-have game to enjoy, when the true matter is that the game is only really enjoyable to those who experienced it the first time around. That much, i can agree with. However, to claim that nostalgia and reverence shouldn't even feature as criterion at all seems, to this gamer at least, absurd. Take the blurb for the same review; 'Master Chief's first adventure is an exciting, if aged, experience.' Are we not speaking the obvious here, IGN? Is it surely not utterly defunct to refer to an anniversary re-release of a game ten years old as being an 'aged experience'? Never mind mentioning the fact, is it not even worse to consider this fact as a demerit, as if a re-release of a game TEN YEARS OLD could be anything other than a TEN YEAR OLD GAME? I mean not to pick on IGN in this instance, as Gamespot are guilty of the very same when it comes to a plethora of Xbox Live and PSN vintage arcade titles re-released to enjoy once again. Does anyone really need to be told that Pac Man is a basic return to old-school gaming? Do we seriously need prior warning that Frogger cannot hold its own against modern HD gaming standards? The critical profession seems utterly baffled by re-makes and re-releases alike, taking a near uniform policy of reviewing these new fangled releases as if they were entirely new and of today's expected standards. But naturally - obviously - they are not. To tamper with a much-loved vintage release to bring it up to said standards would completely defeat the object of a re-release, yet to review games by this standard seems to doom every re-mastered effort to a mediocre critical reception regardless of how lovingly recreated it may be, or how excellent a graphical overhaul it might have received. Indeed, this bewildering practice of reviewing vintage games based on the supposed need to consider all games on an equal playing field and all potential buyers as curious review-readers seems at odds not only with reality and common sense, but with other members of the critical writing community. Take film, for instance. Would we honestly ever read about a re-mastered DVD of the Great Escape being dismissed as paltry compared with the special effects on offer in Saving Private Ryan? Would a horror film receive demerits for being too horrifying for those who aren't interested in horror movies? Whatever happened to writing for purpose? A re-make or a re-boot has a specific target audience, and the reviews of those games should have the sense to consider this. How can reverence and nostalgia be dismissed as review criterion when some might argue the entire point of the release is to relive a past glory? It may please Halo fans to know that Anniversary is about as perfect a remake as one could ask for, and i urge my fellow gamers to disregard the handful of reviews which insist the game 'has not aged well.' Nonsense. Having played nearly four hours straight and plowed half way through the xbox brand's first killer app, it's as enjoyable an experience as one could ask for in a reboot of a treasured piece of gaming history. It's high time reviewers changed their nonsensical approach to reviewing our old favorites and allow the more lovingly re-created tributes to times gone by the acclaim they deserve.