Mega Man 9 - IGN Review

IGN once again shows that they have no business reviewing games

They give the graphics a 3 while Capcom was GOING for that look. They didn't try to do HD graphics and fail, they tried for top notch 8 bit design and nailed it.

These people are fools.

Jaysonguy

They actually said that the 3 was a compliment. Bozon reviewed it and he's a huge Mega Man. Perhaps you should actually read the review.

I see the 3 rating as a nod to the graphics. Basically, they're saying, "The graphics in games were horrible back then, but we loved them anyway." It was an affectionate 3 rating - that's what the IGN guys were going for, so you can't knock it, right? ;)JordanElek

You'd think that's what they meant but....

Abracadabra!

If the graphics were horrible back then let me introduce what I'd like to call "Jason's evidence made of awesome" (patent pending)

Super Mario Bros 3 Wii Review!!!

If everyone would be so kind to click you'll see that they give the graphics an 8.

For those of you who are NOT kind let me copy and paste...

"8.0 Graphics
Some of the best 8-bit work ever done – seeing Mario encounter the oversized enemies of Giant Land still impresses to this day. Some flicker issues, though."

So the graphics were bad in the day yet they rank them an 8, when those graphics are recreated they get a 3.

Hmmmmm

You'd think that's what they meant but....

Abracadabra!

If the graphics were horrible back then let me introduce what I'd like to call "Jason's evidence made of awesome" (patent pending)

Super Mario Bros 3 Wii Review!!!

If everyone would be so kind to click you'll see that they give the graphics an 8.

For those of you who are NOT kind let me copy and paste...

"8.0 Graphics
Some of the best 8-bit work ever done – seeing Mario encounter the oversized enemies of Giant Land still impresses to this day. Some flicker issues, though."

So the graphics were bad in the day yet they rank them an 8, when those graphics are recreated they get a 3.

Hmmmmm

Jaysonguy

[QUOTE="JordanElek"]I see the 3 rating as a nod to the graphics. Basically, they're saying, "The graphics in games were horrible back then, but we loved them anyway." It was an affectionate 3 rating - that's what the IGN guys were going for, so you can't knock it, right? ;)Jaysonguy

You'd think that's what they meant but....

Abracadabra!

If the graphics were horrible back then let me introduce what I'd like to call "Jason's evidence made of awesome" (patent pending)

Super Mario Bros 3 Wii Review!!!

If everyone would be so kind to click you'll see that they give the graphics an 8.

For those of you who are NOT kind let me copy and paste...

"8.0 Graphics
Some of the best 8-bit work ever done – seeing Mario encounter the oversized enemies of Giant Land still impresses to this day. Some flicker issues, though."

So the graphics were bad in the day yet they rank them an 8, when those graphics are recreated they get a 3.

Hmmmmm

Difference is that one is a WiiWare game and one is a VC game.

Though, I can see what you are saying.

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

You'd think that's what they meant but....

Abracadabra!

If the graphics were horrible back then let me introduce what I'd like to call "Jason's evidence made of awesome" (patent pending)

Super Mario Bros 3 Wii Review!!!

If everyone would be so kind to click you'll see that they give the graphics an 8.

For those of you who are NOT kind let me copy and paste...

"8.0 Graphics
Some of the best 8-bit work ever done – seeing Mario encounter the oversized enemies of Giant Land still impresses to this day. Some flicker issues, though."

So the graphics were bad in the day yet they rank them an 8, when those graphics are recreated they get a 3.

Hmmmmm

air_wolf_cubed

You are making me work hard at this lol

Ok, how do we check what he's reviewed?

You are making me work hard at this lol

Ok, how do we check what he's reviewed?

Jaysonguy

Difference is that one is a WiiWare game and one is a VC game.

Though, I can see what you are saying.

Haziqonfire

Is that difference really anything more than trivial? VC and WiiWare titles have the same download size constraints on them and are priced in the same range. What matters is that they're rating graphics on a different basis and are being inconsistent. For rereleases, they measure it based on how well the 8-bit work is done. For games that pay tribute to that styIe, they measure it based on the other games available for download.

Either they should also score NES VC titles lower because they are dated compared to the SNES and N64 titles available for download via VC, or, they should also score tribute 8-bit-styIe games based on how good the 8-bit work is done.

Well they were reviewed by different people

air_wolf_cubed

Relevance? The policy for rating games should be consistent across the site. They have a policy and all reviews can be assumed to conform to their policy. Scores ought to be assigned based on consistent criteria, regardless of author.

Look, about the whole graphics thing.

Super mario bros. 3 graphics were rated higher because it was a game released during the NES period, and it pushed the hardware to it's limits.

Now that it's 2008 making a game with 8 bit graphics isnt even close to good compared to anything else being released. Yes, they were trying to make a game with 8 bit graphics, and they suceeded, but that doesnt stop the graphics from being old.

If you read the comment under the graphics score, you can tell that they were saying "Hey, these graphics suck, but we love 'em!"

[QUOTE="air_wolf_cubed"]Well they were reviewed by different peopleclicketyclick

You'd think that's what they meant but....

Abracadabra!

If the graphics were horrible back then let me introduce what I'd like to call "Jason's evidence made of awesome" (patent pending)

Super Mario Bros 3 Wii Review!!!

If everyone would be so kind to click you'll see that they give the graphics an 8.

For those of you who are NOT kind let me copy and paste...

"8.0 Graphics
Some of the best 8-bit work ever done – seeing Mario encounter the oversized enemies of Giant Land still impresses to this day. Some flicker issues, though."

So the graphics were bad in the day yet they rank them an 8, when those graphics are recreated they get a 3.

Hmmmmm

Jaysonguy

You can't really compare Mario's graphics to Megaman's. Super Mario Bros 3 is more colorful, vibrant, and eye pleasing, it wins hands down. All the old Megaman games look somewhat the same, and they all pretty much play the same. You run and shoot enemies, use a slide attack and charge shot and gain a new ability from each boss. Mario games are all different and unique. Maybe that's not a great comparison but either way the graphics weren't bad back in the day, at the time they were awesome. Just like when the SNES came out and the N64, at the time those graphics were awesome. Even though those are the graphics they were going for with Megaman 9, it feels like they're taking a step back. So of course they're not going to rate the graphics very high, even though it's a brand new game. They gave Super Mario Bros 3 an 8 for graphics because it's one of the best NES games ever made, and it deserves the scores it gets. Whereas Megaman 9 looks the same as all the other old Megaman games. I'm not saying I hate Megaman either, I've been a fan for many years. Megaman 3 happens to be my favorite up until Megaman X.

So why does it really matter what score Megaman 9 gets, for graphics or whatever. If you like Megaman you're going to like Megaman 9 and download it right away. Stop complaining about the review scores and enjoy the game when it comes out, honestly.

[QUOTE="clicketyclick"][QUOTE="air_wolf_cubed"]Well they were reviewed by different peopleair_wolf_cubed

Opinions are cool, but they should be based on consistent criteria, and the fact that they have a site-wide policy on rating games acknowledges this. Reviewers on a single site may have different opinions on how good the graphics are, but they should be forming their opinions over the same criteria. They aren't, though they acknowledge that they should.

Either: Does it achieve the styIe well? (which they're using in VC reviews)

Or: How does it compare to the graphical quality of other downloadable games? (which they're using in WiiWare reviews)

There MUST be consistent criteria for rating games. Similarly, we must agree to the same definitions of words. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to even understand the opinion I am trying to communicate.

[QUOTE="JordanElek"]I see the 3 rating as a nod to the graphics. Basically, they're saying, "The graphics in games were horrible back then, but we loved them anyway." It was an affectionate 3 rating - that's what the IGN guys were going for, so you can't knock it, right? ;)Jaysonguy

You'd think that's what they meant but....

Abracadabra!

If the graphics were horrible back then let me introduce what I'd like to call "Jason's evidence made of awesome" (patent pending)

If everyone would be so kind to click you'll see that they give the graphics an 8.

For those of you who are NOT kind let me copy and paste...

"8.0 Graphics
Some of the best 8-bit work ever done – seeing Mario encounter the oversized enemies of Giant Land still impresses to this day. Some flicker issues, though."

So the graphics were bad in the day yet they rank them an 8, when those graphics are recreated they get a 3.

Hmmmmm

Ratings on graphics are given based on the limitations of hardware. SMB3 is one of the best looking NES games, therefore it gets a high rating for graphics. Games on WiiWare have the ability to look much better than Mega Man 9, therefore it gets a bad rating. You can't expect them to give bad graphics a good score just because it was the intended look.

Ratings on graphics are given based on the limitations of hardware. SMB3 is one of the best looking NES games, therefore it gets a high rating for graphics. Games on WiiWare have the ability to look much better than Mega Man 9, therefore it gets a bad rating. You can't expect them to give bad graphics a good score just because it was the intended look.

Rocky32189

On the other hand, these games are being rereleased on Wii, which doesn't have the limitations of the original hardware. These games could be enhanced - or even remade.

This is why they marked down Mega Man 9 on WiiWare: "when put against other download games, it won't look pretty."

Can't the same be said of VC downloadable games? So why isn't that criterion being applied consistently? Why aren't NES VC games marked down because SNES and N64 VC games look prettier?

On the other hand, these games are being rereleased on Wii, which doesn't have the limitations of the original hardware. These games could be enhanced - or even remade.clicketyclick

Nintendo's stance for the VC is that the games should look and run exactly as they originally did (with a few minor exceptions, such as the altered ads in Wave Race). So no, VC games can't be enhanced or remade. If they were to be, they'd be WiiWare games.

gamer6464 hit the nail on the head in his post. Jason's example of SMB3 is irrelevant because one is a VC game and one is WiiWare. Show us an example of a WiiWare game with 8-bit graphics that scored highly on IGN and you'll have a point.

Nintendo's stance for the VC is that the games should look and run exactly as they originally did ...Jason's example of SMB3 is irrelevant because one is a VC game and one is WiiWare.

JordanElek

That may be Nintendo's stance, but IGN's stance is that "Everything is reviewed based on the standards of the day of release." The only thing that is irrelevant here is the distinction between VC and WiiWare games.

The only thing that is irrelevant here is the distinction between VC and WiiWare games.
clicketyclick

How is that irrelevant? VC games were developed years ago, and in some cases, decades ago. WiiWare games are all developed within this generation. The distinction is relevant because reviewers must take that into account. IGN recognizes this:

Unless otherwise noted in the review itself, game reviews are based solely on the product at the time of release. Exceptions may include retro reviews or reviews of games that are re-released years after their initial launch, and will be communicated in the review itself.IGN Review Guidelines

I think my previous point stands.

IGN once again shows that they have no business reviewing games

They give the graphics a 3 while Capcom was GOING for that look. They didn't try to do HD graphics and fail, they tried for top notch 8 bit design and nailed it.

These people are fools.

Jaysonguy

But they said that the "bad graphics" were actually a plus, and since the IGN's final score isn't an average, the 3 on graphics didn't affect the overall score of the game.

[QUOTE="clicketyclick"]The only thing that is irrelevant here is the distinction between VC and WiiWare games.
JordanElek

How is that irrelevant? VC games were developed years ago, and in some cases, decades ago. WiiWare games are all developed within this generation. The distinction is relevant because reviewers must take that into account. IGN recognizes this:

Unless otherwise noted in the review itself, game reviews are based solely on the product at the time of release. Exceptions may include retro reviews or reviews of games that are re-released years after their initial launch, and will be communicated in the review itself.IGN Review Guidelines

I think my previous point stands.

No, because you're taking those sentences out of their paragraphical context. Here's what came before: "We also take care to review the products as they are released, and we don't consider future patches or updates in the product review unless they are available at the time of release. Our aim is to give you an accurate snapshot of the product as it stands on day one of release."

They are not talking about the STANDARDS of the day of the release in this paragraph. They are talking about how the PRODUCT on the day of release and how only that is considered... except when it's a re-release, because they may compare it to its previous iteration, saying whether it's inferior, and thus the review is not based solely on the PRODUCT at the time of release. But that has no bearing on the assertion in the previous paragraph that "Everything is reviewed based on the standards of the day of release."

They didn't say, "unless otherwise noted"; they said "everything". That means everything is rated by the standards of the day, and most game reviews are based on how the product appears unpatched at day one, with the possible exception of re-release reviews, in which case the product appearing on day one may be compared to the previous product. Yet all products will be rated by the standards of the day.

That means everything is rated by the standards of the day, and most game reviews are based on how the product appears unpatched at day one, with the possible exception of re-release reviews, in which case the product appearing on day one may be compared to the previous product. Yet all products will be rated by the standards of the day.clicketyclick

So what does IGN consider the "day" for a VC game? Is it the original day of release or the day of re-release on the Wii?

Judging from the text of the SMB3 review, it's the original day of release. The majority of the review considers the game as it would've appeared in the early 90s, and only two paragraphs describe any emulation issues on the Wii. Thus the high graphics rating, though it was lowered a bit for emulation issues.

The Megaman 9 review is also considered based on its original day of release. They don't pretend to go back to the NES days and imagine would it would've been like if this game had been released then. They treat it as a new WiiWare game (or PSN game or XBLA game). As they explain, people expecting a new Megaman with new graphics will be sorely disappointed, but retro gamers will love it. Thus the low graphics rating, though it's raised a bit for the retros.

Given all of this, my only goal in this argument is to clarify IGN's policies and see if they're following them. In this case, I think they are. The graphics rating fits with their description of what reviews of new games should be.

[QUOTE="clicketyclick"]That means everything is rated by the standards of the day, and most game reviews are based on how the product appears unpatched at day one, with the possible exception of re-release reviews, in which case the product appearing on day one may be compared to the previous product. Yet all products will be rated by the standards of the day.JordanElek

So what does IGN consider the "day" for a VC game? Is it the original day of release or the day of re-release on the Wii?

Judging from the text of the SMB3 review, it's the original day of release. The majority of the review considers the game as it would've appeared in the early 90s, and only two paragraphs describe any emulation issues on the Wii. Thus the high graphics rating, though it was lowered a bit for emulation issues.

The Megaman 9 review is also considered based on its original day of release. They don't pretend to go back to the NES days and imagine would it would've been like if this game had been released then. They treat it as a new WiiWare game (or PSN game or XBLA game). As they explain, people expecting a new Megaman with new graphics will be sorely disappointed, but retro gamers will love it. Thus the low graphics rating, though it's raised a bit for the retros.

Given all of this, my only goal in this argument is to clarify IGN's policies and see if they're following them. In this case, I think they are. The graphics rating fits with their description of what reviews of new games should be.

Trust me, don't bother with Clickety. He never stops.

[QUOTE="JordanElek"]

[QUOTE="clicketyclick"]The only thing that is irrelevant here is the distinction between VC and WiiWare games.
clicketyclick

How is that irrelevant? VC games were developed years ago, and in some cases, decades ago. WiiWare games are all developed within this generation. The distinction is relevant because reviewers must take that into account. IGN recognizes this:

Unless otherwise noted in the review itself, game reviews are based solely on the product at the time of release. Exceptions may include retro reviews or reviews of games that are re-released years after their initial launch, and will be communicated in the review itself.IGN Review Guidelines

I think my previous point stands.

No, because you're taking those sentences out of their paragraphical context. Here's what came before: "We also take care to review the products as they are released, and we don't consider future patches or updates in the product review unless they are available at the time of release. Our aim is to give you an accurate snapshot of the product as it stands on day one of release."

They are not talking about the STANDARDS of the day of the release in this paragraph. They are talking about how the PRODUCT on the day of release and how only that is considered... except when it's a re-release, because they may compare it to its previous iteration, saying whether it's inferior, and thus the review is not based solely on the PRODUCT at the time of release. But that has no bearing on the assertion in the previous paragraph that "Everything is reviewed based on the standards of the day of release."

They didn't say, "unless otherwise noted"; they said "everything". That means everything is rated by the standards of the day, and most game reviews are based on how the product appears unpatched at day one, with the possible exception of re-release reviews, in which case the product appearing on day one may be compared to the previous product. Yet all products will be rated by the standards of the day.

So what does IGN consider the "day" for a VC game? Is it the original day of release or the day of re-release on the Wii?JordanElek

Considering the word "re-release", that indicates that it's being released again, and that's the release that counts. Besides, they say that the reviews are based on the product on the day of release, except for re-releases, because they may get compared to the original. It seems clear to me that "release" then refers to when the version of the game is purchasable/downloadable. Simply put, the day of release is the release date of the game version they're reviewing!

That means that games are reviewed based on how they are on the day of their release to Virtual Console, but may get compared to the originals. But whenever a game is released - whether it is new IP, a sequel, a re-release, or a remake, it is judged based on the standards of the day that it's released. A game may be old, but if a company decides to wring more money out of it by issuing it again on another platform, it is to be judged by the standards of the day (because, of course, the games of the day are the ones it's competing against for your money, not the games released in 1991.)

IGN's policy states, "This means that, even if a sequel is technologically better than the product that came before, it wouldn't necessarily receive a higher score because our scores are based on the standards at the time of release." Similarly, even if a re-release is technologically better (i.e. save states are improved) than the product that came before, it wouldn't necessarily receive a higher score because scores are based on the standards at the time of release... meaning the re-release date for the re-release.

You cannot use the SMB3 review to argue an interpretation of their policy because that's begging the question. The very thing under question is whether they are uniformly following the policy in their reviews, and you are assuming they are by using their reviews to interpret their policy.

You cannot use the SMB3 review to argue an interpretation of their policy because that's begging the question. The very thing under question is whether they are uniformly following the policy in their reviews, and you are assuming they are by using their reviews to interpret their policy.clicketyclick

Our interpretations differ. We can't really argue any farther (nor do I want to) because we both use the same evidence in support of different conclusions. My original interpretation of IGN's policy was that they use the original day of release, not rerelease, to judge a game. Then I read the SMB3 review to see if my interpretation would hold up to that review. It did. If I were truly dedicated to this discussion, I would've read multiple reviews from multiple reviewers to see what the general practice is in reality, regardless of the written policy. Frankly, I don't have that kind of time.

And also, one of the issues that brought me into this discussion in the first place was Jason's use of the SMB3 review to argue an interpretation of IGN's policy. So you agree now that Jason's example is irrelevant? ;)

And also, one of the issues that brought me into this discussion in the first place was Jason's use of the SMB3 review to argue an interpretation of IGN's policy. So you agree now that Jason's example is irrelevant? ;)

JordanElek

I cannot speak for Jaysonguy, but from what I understood of his post, he was pointing out an inconsistency in their rating criteria by comparing SMB3 to Mega Man 9. The idea is that a site must be consistent in their application of rating criteria (i.e. it would be unfair to rate Wii games based on the graphical capacity of the Wii while at the same time rating Xbox 360 games based on what is graphically possible on PCs. Unless the same criterion is used, ratings are unfair.) Since it must be consistent, either the criteria used to judge SMB3 should be used or the criteria used to judge MM9 should be used. As I understood it, he was simply voicing preference for the criteria used in the SMB3 review.

What did IGN say when Super Mario 64 was re-released for DS? "A very solid display of the system's capabilities. It looks far better on the DS than it did on the N64." Naturally, they considered the graphics in terms of the DS's capabilities, not the N64's. (It of course still got a lower score than the original because even when it is "technologically better than the product that came before, it wouldn't necessarily receive a higher score because our scores are based on the standards at the time of release," according to the policy. My interpretation of the policy, at least, explains it.)

Your interpretation requires elaborate mental calisthenics over the definition of "release". But it is very simple: the "day of release" is the release date of the game version they're reviewing! Are they reviewing sm64 on n64, or on DS? Are they reviewing SMB3 on GBA or on Wii? Are they reviewing RE4 on GC or on Wii? When the same game gets re-released on a different platform, it gets a new review, and sm64, SMB3, and RE4 have different scores on the different platforms, despite still being the same game across all platforms. They don't get the same score as their predecessor for the very reason that they're reviewed based on the standards of the day of release.

What would happen if this weren't so? What if all re-releases were scored based on how they appeared the first time? sm64, SMB3, and RE4 and other games would have to be scored based on how they first appeared. It would give no indication whether it was worth investing your money in the re-release or passing it up for other games available on the same platform. But most importantly, it would not make any sense; Halo on PC, for example, would have had to receive the same score as the Xbox version, despite having framerate issues, no coop, and despite IGN stating that, "when evaluated against the standards of the current PC shooter catalog, Halo seems to fall short."

You see, re-releases have been consistently evaluated based on the standards of the day of release, meaning the standards of the genre's game catalog current at the time of the review on the platform it was re-released onto. Or rather I should say, IGN's approach to re-releases WAS completely consistent... until the advent of Virtual Console Wii games.

Now they have evolved two methods of evaluating game graphics, and which one is being used seems to be a matter of whim:

a) How do the graphics look compared to the games currently available in the same genre on the platform? (i.e. Halo, sm64, and RE4)

b) How do the graphics look compared to other games attempting the same styIe? (i.e. SMB3)

There is no rhyme nor reason to this distinction. Here's my suggestion which combines both: "Can the graphics conceivably be improved, given the limitations of the hardware and keeping in mind that the graphics must be effective and suit the game genre, gameplay, and styIe?"

To this question, I can answer: "Halo PC had a realistic styIe and could and should have been improved; sm64 DS could not have been improved because of the DS's limitations; SMB3 could not have been improved because that isn't Nintendo's intent for VC (as you said) and besides, it near-perfectly pulls off its 8-bit styIe; Mega Man 9 could not have been improved because that wasn't Capcom's intent for it and besides, it near-perfectly pulls off its 8-bit styIe."

When consistency in the method of evaluation is possible, there is no excuse for deviation in method. Sorry for being so verbose; I've been thinking a lot lately about how games should be reviewed.

IGN's approach to re-releases WAS completely consistent... until the advent of Virtual Console Wii games. Now they have evolved two methods of evaluating game graphics, and which one is being used seems to be a matter of whim. . . . There is no rhyme nor reason to this distinction.clicketyclick

There is a reason - the VC is unique. The games are running on emulators of past consoles. Halo for the PC isn't this kind of rerelease. RE4 Wii Edition isn't this kind of rerelease. SM64 for the DS isn't this kind of rerelease. SMB3 for the VC is. The others have some inherent differences from their original versions. For example, Halo is made for the PC and doesn't run on any kind of XBox emulator. It lacks some of the features of the XBox version and has framerate issues because it isn't an exact replica of the XBox version, nor is it intended to be. A VC game is as close to an exact replica of the original game as is possible on an emulator. There's a huge difference there, and it must be taken into account in some way.

Don't apologize for being verbose. I think even professional reviewers are having a bit of a hard time determining the best way to re-review these cIassic games.

[QUOTE="clicketyclick"]IGN's approach to re-releases WAS completely consistent... until the advent of Virtual Console Wii games. Now they have evolved two methods of evaluating game graphics, and which one is being used seems to be a matter of whim. . . . There is no rhyme nor reason to this distinction.JordanElek

There is a reason - the VC is unique. The games are running on emulators of past consoles. Halo for the PC isn't this kind of rerelease. RE4 Wii Edition isn't this kind of rerelease. SM64 for the DS isn't this kind of rerelease. SMB3 for the VC is. The others have some inherent differences from their original versions. For example, Halo is made for the PC and doesn't run on any kind of XBox emulator. It lacks some of the features of the XBox version and has framerate issues because it isn't an exact replica of the XBox version, nor is it intended to be. A VC game is as close to an exact replica of the original game as is possible on an emulator. There's a huge difference there, and it must be taken into account in some way.

Don't apologize for being verbose. I think even professional reviewers are having a bit of a hard time determining the best way to re-review these cIassic games.

Whether it's running on an emulator (we can say that word? :o) or whether it's a true port is a major difference to programmers but really a minor difference to players. Some VC games have also been changed from their originals, for example, the save system and control method, while some ports are pretty much identical (especially noticeable of multiplat releases.) The crux of the matter is that we're seeing the same game on a new system, regardless of programming, so let's have consistency on how we review this.

What you seem to be doing is searching for technicalities to justify this departure from policy for rating re-releases. Even Daemon Hatfield, who works for IGN, disagrees with the graphics score. And if WiiWare games are to be rated based on whether other WiiWare games look better (as MM9 was) then why shouldn't VC games be rated based on whether other VC games look better?

In the end, the method they're using to evaluate games does not reflect their feelings about the games, nor does it reflect basic design philosophy; if graphics are effective (in communicating ideas and feelings to the audience), they are good. IGN loved the graphics, therefore, they are very effective, and a low mark doesn't reflect that. In fact, it's downright misleading, and Hatfield pointed this out. Video games are a form of entertainment, like movies, books, and paintings. Gamers get so frustrated when politicians go on crusades against video games... yet find violent movies perfectly fine in the name of art. If we don't start treating video games like these other forms of entertainment - even as art - we can't expect others to.

StyIe should be privileged over polygon count. If the artist achieves their aim and produces the desired effect on their audience, the visual style was clearly well executed and it was an excellent work. Could Picasso have painted realistically with proper proportions? Of course. He spent his early years doing just that. Could Monet have painted realistically? Indeed, he was a trained artist. But if they had privileged realism over styIe, we'd be that much poorer for it.

Monet's works would not have been as effective with "better" technique - as they are, they capture those intangible elements of light and movement. MM9 is one of those works that would not have been as effective with "better" graphics - as it is, it captures that intangible quality of nostalgia. Both Monet and Van Gogh were derided by the art world for not painting realistically. In fact, "Impressionism" was a derogatory term that Monet's contemporaries used to describe his and his colleagues' art. Are we going to keep making that same mistake, or are we going to realise that moving "backwards" in visual styIe is sometimes more effective than moving "forwards"?

[QUOTE="Rocky32189"]

Ratings on graphics are given based on the limitations of hardware. SMB3 is one of the best looking NES games, therefore it gets a high rating for graphics. Games on WiiWare have the ability to look much better than Mega Man 9, therefore it gets a bad rating. You can't expect them to give bad graphics a good score just because it was the intended look.

clicketyclick

On the other hand, these games are being rereleased on Wii, which doesn't have the limitations of the original hardware. These games could be enhanced - or even remade.

This is why they marked down Mega Man 9 on WiiWare: "when put against other download games, it won't look pretty."

Can't the same be said of VC downloadable games? So why isn't that criterion being applied consistently? Why aren't NES VC games marked down because SNES and N64 VC games look prettier?

VC are direct ports of old games and meant to be just that. WiiWare games are new content created for current gen consoles.

How do you expect them to rate the graphics? Do you expect them to give bad graphics a good score just because it's Mega Man? Graphics ratings are based on technical capabilities and art style. Both of which are very poor for a WiiWare game.

I don't understand why everyone is so upset. The graphics rating has no impact on the overall rating. It would have scored an 8.6 even if he had given graphics a 10.

Some of you are making way too big of a deal over the graphics rating. When all is said and done, the reviewer loved the graphics and the game got a great score. What's the big deal?

I think my previous comment got buried, so I want to reiterate the main point: graphics ratings are idiotic, since they're only accurate for a few months. There's no point in including them in review scores at all. Regardless of VC, platform, etc. there's just no point.klarfis

Wrong. They are based almost primarily on the contraints of the system. Therefore, they are always relevant.

IGN once again shows that they have no business reviewing games

They give the graphics a 3 while Capcom was GOING for that look. They didn't try to do HD graphics and fail, they tried for top notch 8 bit design and nailed it.

These people are fools.

Jaysonguy

Yea i agree i hate ign they suck at reviewing games.

READ THIS:

For those of you who are mad about the 3 for graphics:

What your saying is that a developer can spend alot of time making good graphics and perhaps earn a 9, or a developer can make an 'old school' game, forget the graphics and also earn a 9.

IGN made the right call on this one - thats a FACT.

READ THIS:

For those of you who are mad about the 3 for graphics:

What your saying is that a developer can spend alot of time making good graphics and perhaps earn a 9, or a developer can make an 'old school' game, forget the graphics and also earn a 9.

IGN made the right call on this one - thats a FACT.

alphamale1989

Wrong

It's about going for the look they want.

So with your rule cell shaded games cannot get higher then a 4 or 5.

[QUOTE="alphamale1989"]

READ THIS:

For those of you who are mad about the 3 for graphics:

What your saying is that a developer can spend alot of time making good graphics and perhaps earn a 9, or a developer can make an 'old school' game, forget the graphics and also earn a 9.

IGN made the right call on this one - thats a FACT.

Jaysonguy

Wrong

It's about going for the look they want.

So with your rule cell shaded games cannot get higher then a 4 or 5.

You're obviously missing the point. Whether the graphical style is intentionally bad or not, it's still bad. Your point makes no sense. Give me one good reason why they should give bad graphics a high score.

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"][QUOTE="alphamale1989"]

READ THIS:

For those of you who are mad about the 3 for graphics:

What your saying is that a developer can spend alot of time making good graphics and perhaps earn a 9, or a developer can make an 'old school' game, forget the graphics and also earn a 9.

IGN made the right call on this one - thats a FACT.

Rocky32189

Wrong

It's about going for the look they want.

So with your rule cell shaded games cannot get higher then a 4 or 5.

You're obviously missing the point. Whether the graphical style is intentionally bad or not, it's still bad. Your point makes no sense. Give me one good reason why they should give bad graphics a high score.

There judging the graphics unfairly maybe they should go back in time 10 years back and they'll think it looks amazing. They should be juding it like a retro title there not MM2 has a better rating. Ive said ign cant review games for there life have u ever looked at there vc reviews. There dumb i dont take there opinion in what i think of the game.

[QUOTE="Rocky32189"][QUOTE="Jaysonguy"][QUOTE="alphamale1989"]

READ THIS:

For those of you who are mad about the 3 for graphics:

What your saying is that a developer can spend alot of time making good graphics and perhaps earn a 9, or a developer can make an 'old school' game, forget the graphics and also earn a 9.

IGN made the right call on this one - thats a FACT.

Cheezy-Beezy

Wrong

It's about going for the look they want.

So with your rule cell shaded games cannot get higher then a 4 or 5.

You're obviously missing the point. Whether the graphical style is intentionally bad or not, it's still bad. Your point makes no sense. Give me one good reason why they should give bad graphics a high score.

There judging the graphics unfairly maybe they should go back in time 10 years back and they'll think it looks amazing. They should be juding it like a retro title there not MM2 has a better rating. Ive said ign cant review games for there life have u ever looked at there vc reviews. There dumb i dont take there opinion in what i think of the game.

Yeah, ok so games with bad graphics on the Wii can just say they were aiming for that first Playstation look and get away with murder.

[QUOTE="Rocky32189"][QUOTE="Jaysonguy"][QUOTE="alphamale1989"]

READ THIS:

For those of you who are mad about the 3 for graphics:

What your saying is that a developer can spend alot of time making good graphics and perhaps earn a 9, or a developer can make an 'old school' game, forget the graphics and also earn a 9.

IGN made the right call on this one - thats a FACT.

Cheezy-Beezy

Wrong

It's about going for the look they want.

So with your rule cell shaded games cannot get higher then a 4 or 5.

You're obviously missing the point. Whether the graphical style is intentionally bad or not, it's still bad. Your point makes no sense. Give me one good reason why they should give bad graphics a high score.

There judging the graphics unfairly maybe they should go back in time 10 years back and they'll think it looks amazing. They should be juding it like a retro title there not MM2 has a better rating. Ive said ign cant review games for there life have u ever looked at there vc reviews. There dumb i dont take there opinion in what i think of the game.

How are they judging the graphics unfairly? They are rating the graphics based on the capability of the system and other titles on the service. Apparently you think they should give it a high rating just because it's the almighty Mega Man we're talking about. Giving it a high rating would be unfair to every other game on the service.

Why should they be judging it like a retro title? It's not a retro title. It's a new game for WiiWare.

What is wrong with IGN's reviewing style? Don't throw around insults unless you are prepared to back them up.

IGN once again shows that they have no business reviewing games

They give the graphics a 3 while Capcom was GOING for that look. They didn't try to do HD graphics and fail, they tried for top notch 8 bit design and nailed it.

These people are fools.

Jaysonguy

Listen to the Nintendo Voice podcast at IGN for them to openly explain why they gave it that. They have a whole discussion about it.

Listen to the Nintendo Voice podcast at IGN for them to openly explain why they gave it that. They have a whole discussion about it.Duckman5

Thanks for that, Duckman.

That clears up the factual reasoning behind the score, which is exactly what I and others argued - they treated it like a WiiWare game and compared it to other games available for that service. And it's important to point out that not everyone on the IGN editorial team agrees with the graphics score, but most of them do.

Whether or not you agree with that reasoning is an entirely different matter.

[QUOTE="Duckman5"]Listen to the Nintendo Voice podcast at IGN for them to openly explain why they gave it that. They have a whole discussion about it.JordanElek

Thanks for that, Duckman.

That clears up the factual reasoning behind the score, which is exactly what I and others argued - they treated it like a WiiWare game and compared it to other games available for that service. And it's important to point out that not everyone on the IGN editorial team agrees with the graphics score, but most of them do.

Whether or not you agree with that reasoning is an entirely different matter.

Duckman saves teh day :P

[QUOTE="klarfis"]I think my previous comment got buried, so I want to reiterate the main point: graphics ratings are idiotic, since they're only accurate for a few months. There's no point in including them in review scores at all. Regardless of VC, platform, etc. there's just no point.Rocky32189

Wrong. They are based almost primarily on the contraints of the system. Therefore, they are always relevant.

wow...almost primarily? That means...secondarily? Anyway, it's not even true. Graphics ratings are compared to the other games available at around the same time, since no one knows what the "best output" for a given system is, in the abstract. My point is that, since the comparisons being made are so circumstantial (i.e. whatever games have come out so far for the same system) they really don't say very much about the game at all. Plus, when the system goes obsolete and the game lives on, the rating is totally irrelevant. So this whole argument about how to rate re-releases is silly, because this argument itself will seem horribly outdated in a couple of years.

I honestly believe that, if your visuals can't stand up as "good" twenty years later, they never had any real quality to begin with. It has nothing to do with the system, which has a shorter shelf-life than the game anyway. Byzantine art has no linear perspective and uses a flat "gold" backdrop, but it's still beautiful. That's over a thousand years of technological innovation rendered irrelevant. There's no arguing with that.