Why are games like Super Mario World and A Link to the Past only getting 8.5 scores? Gamespot's staff has put them in their list of the best games of all time. If they're among the best games of all time shouldn't the scores be 9+ or even 10?
Also in the top section where they list quick good and bad bullet points there is nothing written under bad for a Link to the Past and the comment for Super Mario World was a joke. If there is nothing bad about them, I repeat why are the scores so low?
Because their ratings are based on a) how the game has held up over time and b) if it's worth playing now in an age where there are Zelda, Halo, and Gears of War...
They may have been the best games of THEIR time, but not necessarily of OUR time.
I don't think the score is completely based on the game, I believe a big part of it has to do with how the Nintendo handles the Emulation for the game, like glitch's ect.
They said there are no glitches in the emulation of those games. And they would still rank among the best games of OUR time. The only thing time has hurt about these games is the graphics and only in a technical sense. They don't have the wow factor of new High definition games but they haven't lost one bit of the charm they had back then.
No game should ever get a 10. The best games I've ever played--including the WarCraft/StarCraft games, the Civilization games, TIE Fighter Collector's CD-ROM, World of WarCraft, the Half-Life games, the Monkey Island games, and Super Mario Bros.--all have things that could be improved upon, even though they are doubtless the pinnacle of their respective genres. Anyone who thinks that OoT deserves a 10 should be slapped. Great? Okay. Perfect? Absolutely not. As to why the scores are lower, GameSpot scores are averages of the categorical sub-scores. Check there for your reasons.
I like 1ups Retro Roundup better. I love GS scores, don't get me wrong, their reviews are excellent. But I just check the Retro Roundup. I want to buy everything they say Thumbs up for but I don't have all the money now. I agree with them too, they have the same opinions as me.
[QUOTE="littlefugue"]No game should ever get a 10. The best games I've ever played--including the WarCraft/StarCraft games, the Civilization games, TIE Fighter Collector's CD-ROM, World of WarCraft, the Half-Life games, the Monkey Island games, and Super Mario Bros.--all have things that could be improved upon, even though they are doubtless the pinnacle of their respective genres. Anyone who thinks that OoT deserves a 10 should be slapped. Great? Okay. Perfect? Absolutely not. As to why the scores are lower, GameSpot scores are averages of the categorical sub-scores. Check there for your reasons. Why have a rating scale with standards higher than any game can meet? OoT maybe shouldn't be called perfect but at the time it was as close to it as a game could get. It deserved a 10 but maybe a ten shouldn't be called perfect.
Even when it came out, there were better games available--even better Zelda games. I guess this is just my opinion, but I saw no reason for giving it the highest score possible.
A Link to the Past is arguably better, I'm not sure which one I would pick, but that would bring us back to the original point of this thread anyhow.vauba_haoly
can you please just quit whining and enjoy the game? so who gives a flying f*** if someone doesnt enjoy the game as much as you do, as long as YOU find it fun, and YOU find it worthwhile, whos to say someone cant have their own opinion on how it should be done. You dont HAVE to read reviews you know.
edit, i wasnt regarding the post i quoted, just the TC's idiotic whining in general
Because their ratings are based on a) how the game has held up over time and b) if it's worth playing now in an age where there are Zelda, Halo, and Gears of War...
They may have been the best games of THEIR time, but not necessarily of OUR time.
jerryman814
Exactly. And also scores take into account how well the port was done.
Log in to comment