What's with the VC reviews?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for atomic_cheez
atomic_cheez

89

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#1 atomic_cheez
Member since 2003 • 89 Posts
Anyone else think that Gamespot should just not review these? they will never give any of these games higher than an 8. and for most they just reuse the score they give it back in the day. (mario kart 64?)

Maybe if these games were reviewed while not being compared to games of today it would make sense. almost every VC review has this line "graphics dont stand the test of time". COME ON!

These are nostalgic and fun. like digging into your childhood. i hate seeing people crap all over them. Every game that has come out for the virtual console has been a game that was hugely popular when it first came out. so enough with the 6's and 4's. these games are great for what they are.
Avatar image for Jaysonguy
Jaysonguy

39454

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#2 Jaysonguy
Member since 2006 • 39454 Posts
They're comparing them to todays level of games

Do you spend 2007 money to buy the games?
If the answer is yes then I want the games measured by today's standards.
Avatar image for 0_Wii_Man_0
0_Wii_Man_0

919

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 0_Wii_Man_0
Member since 2006 • 919 Posts
They're comparing them to todays level of games

Do you spend 2007 money to buy the games?
If the answer is yes then I want the games measured by today's standards.
Jaysonguy
yup.
Avatar image for atomic_cheez
atomic_cheez

89

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#4 atomic_cheez
Member since 2003 • 89 Posts
They're comparing them to todays level of games

Do you spend 2007 money to buy the games?
If the answer is yes then I want the games measured by today's standards.
Jaysonguy


That's too bad.
I guess the whole nostalgic factor doesn work for most.
Avatar image for hazbazz
hazbazz

7709

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#5 hazbazz
Member since 2005 • 7709 Posts
There would be no point in reviewing them by last decade's standards, we want to know what its like to play now. Some games graphics do stand up to the test of time, I still love the look of Zelda LTTP and SMW, but games like SM64 look very dated, although its still a brilliant game
Avatar image for Jaysonguy
Jaysonguy

39454

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#6 Jaysonguy
Member since 2006 • 39454 Posts
[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]They're comparing them to todays level of games

Do you spend 2007 money to buy the games?
If the answer is yes then I want the games measured by today's standards.
atomic_cheez


That's too bad.
I guess the whole nostalgic factor doesn work for most.


No because Nintendo is still selling a product, they still want money at the end of the day.
For the people who want to turn back the clock and get the games they already know about the games.

For the people who never played these games in the first place they want to know if it stacks up in this day and age with what else is out there.
Zelda stacks up
Mario stacks up
Kirby stacks up

Urban Champion not so much
Legend of Kage, well that's just painful

Reviews aren't to make people feel better about the games they like, they're to inform the people about the games and what they have to offer.
Avatar image for JayMatthews06
JayMatthews06

371

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 JayMatthews06
Member since 2006 • 371 Posts
[QUOTE="atomic_cheez"]Anyone else think that Gamespot should just not review these? they will never give any of these games higher than an 8. and for most they just reuse the score they give it back in the day. (mario kart 64?)

Maybe if these games were reviewed while not being compared to games of today it would make sense. almost every VC review has this line "graphics dont stand the test of time". COME ON!

These are nostalgic and fun. like digging into your childhood. i hate seeing people crap all over them. Every game that has come out for the virtual console has been a game that was hugely popular when it first came out. so enough with the 6's and 4's. these games are great for what they are.



Completely agree with you.
Avatar image for hazbazz
hazbazz

7709

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#8 hazbazz
Member since 2005 • 7709 Posts
[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]They're comparing them to todays level of games

Do you spend 2007 money to buy the games?
If the answer is yes then I want the games measured by today's standards.
atomic_cheez


That's too bad.
I guess the whole nostalgic factor doesn work for most.

there isnt a nostalgic factor when deciding the scores for games. there is gameplay, graphics, value, sound and tilt
Avatar image for cpaschal
cpaschal

474

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 cpaschal
Member since 2005 • 474 Posts
They're comparing them to todays level of games

Do you spend 2007 money to buy the games?
If the answer is yes then I want the games measured by today's standards.
Jaysonguy
Thats bull though. Yes, I spend money to buy them. However, its not like buying a new $50 game. I'm spending $10 at most, and usually only $5 or $8. If you are looking on the VC for games that meet today's standards...then you are in the wrong place. I think they should be judged for what they were (and how fun they are today)...not what they are (in comparison to today's games). BTW...most games on the VC are a lot more FUN than the crap they sell in the store for $50 or $60. Games like FZero and even Zelda ALttP didnt become great games because of their graphics and sound...they did so because they were FUN.
Avatar image for JayMatthews06
JayMatthews06

371

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 JayMatthews06
Member since 2006 • 371 Posts
[QUOTE="atomic_cheez"][QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]They're comparing them to todays level of games

Do you spend 2007 money to buy the games?
If the answer is yes then I want the games measured by today's standards.
hazbazz


That's too bad.
I guess the whole nostalgic factor doesn work for most.

there isnt a nostalgic factor when deciding the scores for games. there is gameplay, graphics, value, sound and tilt



That just shows how shallow GameSpot's perception of the virtual console games is.

I purchased Donkey Kong Country not for the cutting-edge graphics or the quality of the soundrack, but because it was one of my favourite games when I was a kid.
Avatar image for cpaschal
cpaschal

474

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 cpaschal
Member since 2005 • 474 Posts
[QUOTE="atomic_cheez"][QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]They're comparing them to todays level of games

Do you spend 2007 money to buy the games?
If the answer is yes then I want the games measured by today's standards.
hazbazz


That's too bad.
I guess the whole nostalgic factor doesn work for most.

there isnt a nostalgic factor when deciding the scores for games. there is gameplay, graphics, value, sound and tilt

And thats why VC and XBLA games should be judged and rated differently.

Kinda like the commercial: Diet Dr. Pepper tastes more like regular Dr. Pepper. Tastes more like it in comparison to what? Milk? Crap? Yup, they're right!!!
Its all in what you are comparing the graphics and sound and all to.
Avatar image for PikaPichu
PikaPichu

17813

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 PikaPichu
Member since 2003 • 17813 Posts
[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]They're comparing them to todays level of games

Do you spend 2007 money to buy the games?
If the answer is yes then I want the games measured by today's standards.
cpaschal
Thats bull though. Yes, I spend money to buy them. However, its not like buying a new $50 game. I'm spending $10 at most, and usually only $5 or $8. If you are looking on the VC for games that meet today's standards...then you are in the wrong place. I think they should be judged for what they were (and how fun they are today)...not what they are (in comparison to today's games). BTW...most games on the VC are a lot more FUN than the crap they sell in the store for $50 or $60. Games like FZero and even Zelda ALttP didnt become great games because of their graphics and sound...they did so because they were FUN.

No... games like FZero and Zelda: LttP both had stellar graphics and sound for their time. They showcased advanced 'mode 7' effects and other sprite/scaling abilities possible with the advanced SNES hardware.
Avatar image for Jaysonguy
Jaysonguy

39454

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#13 Jaysonguy
Member since 2006 • 39454 Posts
[QUOTE="hazbazz"][QUOTE="atomic_cheez"][QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]They're comparing them to todays level of games

Do you spend 2007 money to buy the games?
If the answer is yes then I want the games measured by today's standards.
JayMatthews06


That's too bad.
I guess the whole nostalgic factor doesn work for most.

there isnt a nostalgic factor when deciding the scores for games. there is gameplay, graphics, value, sound and tilt



That just shows how shallow GameSpot's perception of the virtual console games is.

I purchased Donkey Kong Country not for the cutting-edge graphics or the quality of the soundrack, but because it was one of my favourite games when I was a kid.


Great, you just made my point and Gamespots point for us

You don't NEED the review, if that review hurt your feelings well then toughen up a little but past that they didn't help OR hinder you from your purchase.

For the people who never bought it it helps them understand where it ranks in this day and age compared to what they've already played.
Many people didn't play these games the first time around, they need to know what it's like NOW.

I could care less about 1988
Avatar image for cpaschal
cpaschal

474

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 cpaschal
Member since 2005 • 474 Posts
[QUOTE="JayMatthews06"][QUOTE="hazbazz"][QUOTE="atomic_cheez"][QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]They're comparing them to todays level of games

Do you spend 2007 money to buy the games?
If the answer is yes then I want the games measured by today's standards.
Jaysonguy


That's too bad.
I guess the whole nostalgic factor doesn work for most.

there isnt a nostalgic factor when deciding the scores for games. there is gameplay, graphics, value, sound and tilt



That just shows how shallow GameSpot's perception of the virtual console games is.

I purchased Donkey Kong Country not for the cutting-edge graphics or the quality of the soundrack, but because it was one of my favourite games when I was a kid.


Great, you just made my point and Gamespots point for us

You don't NEED the review, if that review hurt your feelings well then toughen up a little but past that they didn't help OR hinder you from your purchase.

For the people who never bought it it helps them understand where it ranks in this day and age compared to what they've already played.
Many people didn't play these games the first time around, they need to know what it's liek NOW.

I could care less about 1988

You're what? 15? Maybe 16? You obvisously shouldnt be playing games on the VC...because you will not like most.
Avatar image for JayMatthews06
JayMatthews06

371

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 JayMatthews06
Member since 2006 • 371 Posts
[QUOTE="JayMatthews06"][QUOTE="hazbazz"][QUOTE="atomic_cheez"][QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]They're comparing them to todays level of games

Do you spend 2007 money to buy the games?
If the answer is yes then I want the games measured by today's standards.
Jaysonguy


That's too bad.
I guess the whole nostalgic factor doesn work for most.

there isnt a nostalgic factor when deciding the scores for games. there is gameplay, graphics, value, sound and tilt



That just shows how shallow GameSpot's perception of the virtual console games is.

I purchased Donkey Kong Country not for the cutting-edge graphics or the quality of the soundrack, but because it was one of my favourite games when I was a kid.


Great, you just made my point and Gamespots point for us

You don't NEED the review, if that review hurt your feelings well then toughen up a little but past that they didn't help OR hinder you from your purchase.

For the people who never bought it it helps them understand where it ranks in this day and age compared to what they've already played.
Many people didn't play these games the first time around, they need to know what it's like NOW.

I could care less about 1988



They didn't quite "hurt my feelings" - I think that would be taking it a bit too far...

But I do take your point.
Avatar image for cpaschal
cpaschal

474

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 cpaschal
Member since 2005 • 474 Posts
[QUOTE="cpaschal"][QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]They're comparing them to todays level of games

Do you spend 2007 money to buy the games?
If the answer is yes then I want the games measured by today's standards.
PikaPichu
Thats bull though. Yes, I spend money to buy them. However, its not like buying a new $50 game. I'm spending $10 at most, and usually only $5 or $8. If you are looking on the VC for games that meet today's standards...then you are in the wrong place. I think they should be judged for what they were (and how fun they are today)...not what they are (in comparison to today's games). BTW...most games on the VC are a lot more FUN than the crap they sell in the store for $50 or $60. Games like FZero and even Zelda ALttP didnt become great games because of their graphics and sound...they did so because they were FUN.

No... games like FZero and Zelda: LttP both had stellar graphics and sound for their time. They showcased advanced 'mode 7' effects and other sprite/scaling abilities possible with the advanced SNES hardware.

As an owner of both games when they were originally released, I disagree. Zelda's graphics were nice, but weren't anything stellar for the time. The gameplay and the fun factor sold both games. F-Zero, maybe was a little graphically great a the time, but the graphics were dated by the time the next generation of games came around on the SNES. Just like most games of the 16bit era, fun and gameplay sold the games. Unlike today, where devs think that graphics rule. So graphic whores will have a tough time picking through the VC, IMO.
Avatar image for Jaysonguy
Jaysonguy

39454

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#17 Jaysonguy
Member since 2006 • 39454 Posts
[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"][QUOTE="JayMatthews06"][QUOTE="hazbazz"][QUOTE="atomic_cheez"][QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]They're comparing them to todays level of games

Do you spend 2007 money to buy the games?
If the answer is yes then I want the games measured by today's standards.
cpaschal


That's too bad.
I guess the whole nostalgic factor doesn work for most.

there isnt a nostalgic factor when deciding the scores for games. there is gameplay, graphics, value, sound and tilt



That just shows how shallow GameSpot's perception of the virtual console games is.

I purchased Donkey Kong Country not for the cutting-edge graphics or the quality of the soundrack, but because it was one of my favourite games when I was a kid.


Great, you just made my point and Gamespots point for us

You don't NEED the review, if that review hurt your feelings well then toughen up a little but past that they didn't help OR hinder you from your purchase.

For the people who never bought it it helps them understand where it ranks in this day and age compared to what they've already played.
Many people didn't play these games the first time around, they need to know what it's liek NOW.

I could care less about 1988

You're what? 15? Maybe 16? You obvisously shouldnt be playing games on the VC...because you will not like most.


What?
Are you trying to make a point?

I'm going to make this easy so everyone can understand it.

The Wii is pulling in the non gamer in all age groups
Many of those people never played the games the first time around.
When they go around and pay money (in 2007) they want to get quality, no garbage.
These reviews help someone know that they should not get Donkey Kong because it's missing a level

For the person who had Donkey Kong back in the day and loves it?
Great, I'm very happy for you. I'm sure it brings back many good memories and 5 dollars isn't too much to grab onto fleeting memories of yesterday.

For the rest of the population?
They want to know they're getting a less then average game if they buy it.

This is what's called being a responsible consumer, if you research the titles then it's your own fault if the game sucks.
Gamespot helps consumers choose a good game and not end up with buyers remorse.
Avatar image for EolGul2
EolGul2

1721

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 EolGul2
Member since 2005 • 1721 Posts
Do you spend 2007 money to buy the games?
If the answer is yes then I want the games measured by today's standards.
Jaysonguy

Since when is $5-10 today the same as $50 in the 90'S?  Inflation hasn't hit that hard, thank god.

Avatar image for greenneil4
greenneil4

2041

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#19 greenneil4
Member since 2005 • 2041 Posts
The vc games are always underrated
Avatar image for 00Joseph00
00Joseph00

1578

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 44

User Lists: 0

#20 00Joseph00
Member since 2004 • 1578 Posts
For $60 I can get Gears of War, a 9.6/10 game.  But for $10 I can get Super Mario 64 on the Wii, a 8.4/10 game (according to GameSpot of course).  When they put in value, does that actually get counted?  Will I get less satisfaction from $10 spent on Super Mario 64?  What if Gears of War cost only $10?  Would GameSpot give it a 10/10?
Avatar image for Auberondreaming
Auberondreaming

182

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 Auberondreaming
Member since 2005 • 182 Posts
I agree with the topic poster, you should measure the games against other games on the respective system its on, instead of against "modern" games.  I dont care that Im spending 2007 money.  I care if a game was fun, if it was important to the history of gaming and if it is still fun today.  I dont think there is a time limit on the fun factor.  What was fun in the 80s and 90s will still be fun today.  I think the comparison goes both ways as well.  What does it really mean that mario64 got in the 8's while Gears got in the nines?  Do those games really compare like that?  Not to mention I could have sworn this was a Gamespot policy to compare vc games to other vc games and not modern games.  Regaurdless of what else youve played, fun games will be fun.  Donkey Kong Country is still a blast.  That wont ever change.
Avatar image for MarioFanatic
MarioFanatic

6153

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#22 MarioFanatic
Member since 2003 • 6153 Posts

They're comparing them to todays level of games

Do you spend 2007 money to buy the games?
If the answer is yes then I want the games measured by today's standards.
Jaysonguy
exactly what he said. sure they kind of underrate some games, but they are just going by todays standards

you will also have to take into consideration that you are using a different controller to play these games, so controls are also an issue.

Avatar image for Dark_Knight6
Dark_Knight6

16619

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 Dark_Knight6
Member since 2006 • 16619 Posts

They're comparing them to todays level of games

Do you spend 2007 money to buy the games?
If the answer is yes then I want the games measured by today's standards.
Jaysonguy

then nothing will have over a 5 in graaphics or sound, oh well. 

Avatar image for Jaysonguy
Jaysonguy

39454

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#24 Jaysonguy
Member since 2006 • 39454 Posts

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]They're comparing them to todays level of games

Do you spend 2007 money to buy the games?
If the answer is yes then I want the games measured by today's standards.
Dark_Knight6

then nothing will have over a 5 in graaphics or sound, oh well.


That's not true, the games here are never reviewed by graphics they're reviewed on the art forbidden>
Avatar image for Link256
Link256

29195

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 Link256
Member since 2005 • 29195 Posts
To see how "good" or "bad" the quality of the emulation is.

Also, other than seeing how the emulation is, one of the main points of virtual console review is to see whether or not its able to withstand the test of time, and to see how "high" or "low" it is in that respect - what is wrong with that? Nostalgia or not, its rare instance when person, of clear thinking, is able to enjoy most any game with same exact level of enjoyment from their first experience.

So, with that being said, why should any game, regardless of its "status," recieve same exact score if the feeling is not same exact way it was back than?

In addition, while nostalgia ("classic" status) should be put into consideration (and I believe that has been the case in fairly good majority reviews I have seen from GameSpot and IGN), however, at the same time, opposite feeling of specturn of certain things feelings "dated" should not be excused, either.

To be simple, if you are going to take one feeling into thought, person should be fair, and therefore, consider the other feelings, otherwise, for my liking, that is sign of bias and/or unclear/incomplete thinking.

Furthermore, you ever think about the possibility that some folks may have not played some of these games in the past, and therefore, notstalgia is not really factor? Or, for that matter, there are good amount of folks in my situation that, despite being around back in that era of gaming, did not have chance to play some of these games.

Anyhow, while I am on the point, that brings my next point. While there are some folks who will feel nostalgia for these titles (if that is the case for you and some others, for whateve its worth, I approve) , on the other hand, you need remember there will be others who will not be as "forgiving," and therefore, see some (if not most) of these titles, or certain elements of them, as being "dated." Well, for those folks, this is what these reviews are for - to see, as I have said previously, whether or not if the titles will be able to with-hold the test of time?

For my liking, I find these reviews to be helpful and therefore, necessary. To say that views on "classic" titles cannot be changed is silly. That is being unfair to modern titles that have been able to imporve on some of these formulas or, in other cases, created others.

Finally, if they were truly classics, in my mind, they would be able to, in sense, on some kind of degree, compete with the modern stuff, and therefore, with-stand the test of time.

On side note, some of these titles were not exactly great to begin with. Honestly, Urban Champion? Pinball? Soccer? Tennis? I played each of those titles "back in the day" and to be honest, I was not exactly "thrilled" by them back than - I seriously doubt passing time has helped matters (if anything, it has only damaged them).

Avatar image for nintendofreak_2
nintendofreak_2

25896

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 0

#26 nintendofreak_2
Member since 2005 • 25896 Posts
They should use the old review and re-review it then average the two out.
 
Avatar image for Jaysonguy
Jaysonguy

39454

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#27 Jaysonguy
Member since 2006 • 39454 Posts
They should use the old review and re-review it then average the two out.
nintendofreak_2

That makes no sense
How does that help customers today?

This isn't about making you feel good about the games you like.
Avatar image for nintendofreak_2
nintendofreak_2

25896

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 0

#28 nintendofreak_2
Member since 2005 • 25896 Posts
[QUOTE="nintendofreak_2"]They should use the old review and re-review it then average the two out.
Jaysonguy

That makes no sense
How does that help customers today?

This isn't about making you feel good about the games you like.

This would make the games not have a mediocre score as all of them do.  And how does it make no sense? Looks crystal clear to me.
Avatar image for Jaysonguy
Jaysonguy

39454

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#29 Jaysonguy
Member since 2006 • 39454 Posts
[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"][QUOTE="nintendofreak_2"]They should use the old review and re-review it then average the two out.
nintendofreak_2

That makes no sense
How does that help customers today?

This isn't about making you feel good about the games you like.

This would make the games not have a mediocre score as all of them do. And how does it make no sense? Looks crystal clear to me.


Yes if you want to see wrong just fine.

These reviews are to help buyers, not make fans of the games feel good about them
If you don't like the reviews your favorite games get then your only option is to toughen up.

Some of these games are over 20 years old, the c la ss i c s still hold up today, they're still worth it

If you like the game from the past and think it's good then the review isn't for you. You have no business with that review because either way it doesn't matter. The person who never played it before needs that review to see if they want to spend their money on a game that holds it's own compared to the other games available.
Avatar image for GRIMSAGE
GRIMSAGE

109

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#30 GRIMSAGE
Member since 2002 • 109 Posts
I think they should apply todays standards.  If the game is great by todays standards then give it a good score.  Timeless games like Super Mario Brothers, Mario World, Zelda LttP, these titles are still fun and do not feel dated.  They make you feel like a kid again without boring you with their age.  That is the test for a truely great game.  Can you play it 20 years later and it still be as fun as the day it was released.
Avatar image for be_very_afraid
be_very_afraid

471

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31 be_very_afraid
Member since 2004 • 471 Posts
I believe these reviews should be handled like EGM's Retro section with a "Then" and "Now" score.
Avatar image for Link256
Link256

29195

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32 Link256
Member since 2005 • 29195 Posts

I believe these reviews should be handled like EGM's Retro section with a "Then" and "Now" score.be_very_afraid
While I agree with that would be good idea in theory, beyond the Nintendo 64, that kind of feature would be useless.

Also, you have to take into account, in all likely hood, over the years, some of folks who originally reviewed these games have left GameSpot and therefore, with that kind of comparison, more likely than not, there would be difference in who the reviewer was - needless to say, that kind of feature would probably be more troublesome and confusing than it would be helpful.

Avatar image for blacktorn
blacktorn

8299

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#33 blacktorn
Member since 2004 • 8299 Posts
It's gamespot's job to review games that come out,it's like saying they shouldn't rate the sega Genesis collection for the sonic mega collection,just because the games are old doesn't mean there not viable for reviews.

Avatar image for atomic_cheez
atomic_cheez

89

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#34 atomic_cheez
Member since 2003 • 89 Posts
[QUOTE="cpaschal"][QUOTE="Jaysonguy"][QUOTE="JayMatthews06"][QUOTE="hazbazz"][QUOTE="atomic_cheez"][QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]They're comparing them to todays level of games

Do you spend 2007 money to buy the games?
If the answer is yes then I want the games measured by today's standards.
Jaysonguy


That's too bad.
I guess the whole nostalgic factor doesn work for most.

there isnt a nostalgic factor when deciding the scores for games. there is gameplay, graphics, value, sound and tilt



That just shows how shallow GameSpot's perception of the virtual console games is.

I purchased Donkey Kong Country not for the cutting-edge graphics or the quality of the soundrack, but because it was one of my favourite games when I was a kid.


Great, you just made my point and Gamespots point for us

You don't NEED the review, if that review hurt your feelings well then toughen up a little but past that they didn't help OR hinder you from your purchase.

For the people who never bought it it helps them understand where it ranks in this day and age compared to what they've already played.
Many people didn't play these games the first time around, they need to know what it's liek NOW.

I could care less about 1988

You're what? 15? Maybe 16? You obvisously shouldnt be playing games on the VC...because you will not like most.


What?
Are you trying to make a point?

I'm going to make this easy so everyone can understand it.

The Wii is pulling in the non gamer in all age groups
Many of those people never played the games the first time around.
When they go around and pay money (in 2007) they want to get quality, no garbage.
These reviews help someone know that they should not get Donkey Kong because it's missing a level

For the person who had Donkey Kong back in the day and loves it?
Great, I'm very happy for you. I'm sure it brings back many good memories and 5 dollars isn't too much to grab onto fleeting memories of yesterday.

For the rest of the population?
They want to know they're getting a less then average game if they buy it.

This is what's called being a responsible consumer, if you research the titles then it's your own fault if the game sucks.
Gamespot helps consumers choose a good game and not end up with buyers remorse.



I think some of the biggest selling points for these games are our love for them growing up.
Honestly for someone who wasnt around during the NES or SNES years, you may not find much you like.
All of these games are so great because on mondays you're like "what! i remember that!"
if it isnt nostalgic for you than i bet playing 8 bit zelda could be annoying or not your cup tea.
Games you loved as a kid getting 5's and 6's over Gamespot when back when it came out these games were the games to be playing doesnt make sense to me.
Everyone i knew was going crazy on Streets of Rage, and it gets a 6 now why? when back then it would have for sure gotten an 8 or higher. it's just wrong.


Avatar image for SirSpudly
SirSpudly

4045

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#35 SirSpudly
Member since 2006 • 4045 Posts
Ok, two points here.

1) There are 6 games at an 8.0 or higher for the virtual console. There are 6 games for the Wii in disc form that are above an 8.0. This shows that the good games are being selected, while the great to mediocre games are being sifted.  That being said, there are about 40 games that are between 8.0 and 7.0.  From both a reader's and reviewer's standpoint, that is without a doubt a true sign that many games for the Wii are relevant to a 2007 gamer's interests.

2)A lot of the games on the VC have sequels that have surpassed them both graphically and gameplay wise.  Kirby's Adventure had Dream Land 3 and Superstar.  Soccer had Fifa.  Pinball had Sonic Spinball (albiet THAT game was short too) and Alien Crush.  Super Castlevania had two great Playstation and four sublime renditions playable on a Nintendo DS.  Everyone knows the list goes on, but thats ok. 
     Gamespot's opinion is that the average gamer wants to have fun, but that he knows what type of game he expects to play when he takes it home and puts it in his system.  Nintendo isn't going out of their way to make Kid Icarus kid-friendly, or updating the graphics on Urban Champion to make it more realistic, and thus they suffer. For the price of a points card, the same consumer could be playing Phoenix Wright, or God of War, or even Chrono Cross if they stumble into the right store.  It just detracts from the experience when someone has to pay for faster-than-dialup internet to pay money for a game designed to be fun for 20 minutes under today's standards.  The games were underdogs then, and they are probably on the VC because Nintendo thought it was the underdog now.  Well...Nintendo isn't, and even with all the delays to Q3 and Q4 being made it seems like so much attention has been put on its downloadable gaming department that it feels pressure to let one super game slip into the store.  The reviews have been better because the games are, and to rate so many as above average is just testament to why their 15 year time period is referred to as the golden age instead of the olden age.
Avatar image for metalisticpain
metalisticpain

3536

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#36 metalisticpain
Member since 2005 • 3536 Posts
I think its an Excellent Idea. What if Bahumut Lagoon came out on the SNES. How many of you know what bahumut Lagoon is? Reviewing lets people see new games they never seen before (I never had a sega) it lets people see what older games may be worth their money. Why not?