critics reviewing remakes/re mastered games.....

How comes a re make game eg. zelda orcarina of time end up getting a smaller score then the original on gamespot?

Let me ask you about zelda orcarina of time the n64 version got a 10/10.Zelda orcarina of time 3ds is the same game with no bugs or visual glitches so doesnt it automatically get a 10?Put in the fact the extra fetures the game has one reviewer may say "Ive played the game a million times veterans wont like this game" true true but isnt the point of a re make for the people who havnt played the game to play such a great game?

So why does the game not get the score the game originally got?

gamepot says that zelda orcarina of time 3ds doesnt have master quest unlocked in the bigging although,that is true master quest wasnt in the original if im correct?The point of master quest is to play the game again in a harder way like the rachet and clank games master quests?

So Im asking this again how come remakes dont automatiically get the score the originals had subtracting points if the game had bugs?With the new editions re makes should have the largest cores.

discuss....

How comes a re make game eg. zelda orcarina of time end up getting a smaller score then the original on gamespot?

Let me ask you about zelda orcarina of time the n64 version got a 10/10.Zelda orcarina of time 3ds is the same game with no bugs or visual glitches so doesnt it automatically get a 10?Put in the fact the extra fetures the game has one reviewer may say "Ive played the game a million times veterans wont like this game" true true but isnt the point of a re make for the people who havnt played the game to play such a great game?

So why does the game not get the score the game originally got?

gamepot says that zelda orcarina of time 3ds doesnt have master quest unlocked in the bigging although,that is true master quest wasnt in the original if im correct?The point of master quest is to play the game again in a harder way like the rachet and clank games master quests?

So Im asking this again how come remakes dont automatiically get the score the originals had subtracting points if the game had bugs?With the new editions re makes should have the largest cores.

discuss....

free_milk

That's the opportunity cost. You rehash an old game, it gets reviewed...by our current standards. You wanna immortalize the game's initial score, don't re-release it.

Different standards in 2011 than in 1999.SaltyMeatballs

Only right answer to this.

Some still don't get that standarts change, gaming evolves. What was great ten years ago, today is just meh.

discuss....

free_milk

Anyways it probably has to do with the reviewer played the game already along with older games not seeming as good 10 years or so down the line.

GameSpot in particular seems to be hard on games that are straight-up remakes. They are actually pretty harsh in general even on new games in the series that are just updates rather than innovations. Taking this into account, their rating for OoT makes a lot of sense. I don't really mind this myself, esp. knowing that's how they score but I do think for a lot of people it's more useful to let the game stands on its own w/o comparing it to previous version.

LOL

If that OOT score of 10/10 had any staying power GS would have to rate top rated modern games like 60/10. Standards change. Just because X game received let's say 9.0, and it's sequel X-2 is better than the original, it doesn't mean that it has to score 9.0+, it could easily score less than 9.0 even while it is better because standards change.

[QUOTE="free_milk"]

How comes a re make game eg. zelda orcarina of time end up getting a smaller score then the original on gamespot?

Let me ask you about zelda orcarina of time the n64 version got a 10/10.Zelda orcarina of time 3ds is the same game with no bugs or visual glitches so doesnt it automatically get a 10?Put in the fact the extra fetures the game has one reviewer may say "Ive played the game a million times veterans wont like this game" true true but isnt the point of a re make for the people who havnt played the game to play such a great game?

So why does the game not get the score the game originally got?

gamepot says that zelda orcarina of time 3ds doesnt have master quest unlocked in the bigging although,that is true master quest wasnt in the original if im correct?The point of master quest is to play the game again in a harder way like the rachet and clank games master quests?

So Im asking this again how come remakes dont automatiically get the score the originals had subtracting points if the game had bugs?With the new editions re makes should have the largest cores.

discuss....

jhcho2

That's the opportunity cost. You rehash an old game, it gets reviewed...by our current standards. You wanna immortalize the game's initial score, don't re-release it.

Pretty much this. Standards change, and if a game was the greatest ever then, it won't be now, so if it gets rereleased and expected to be reviewed, its going to be pitted against current standards.

Different standards in 2011 than in 1999.SaltyMeatballs

I don't even think its that

I think you have to review these types of games by how much it is worth it to spend the money on getting it even if you have the original. Like is there enough new content, do the new graphics really improve the game? That sort of thing. I don't think it is different standards that is effecting it because the only way to know how we would truly feel about it without the original influencing our opinion is to see someone who has never heard of it or played it before review it. Like honestly if Ocarina just came out, and someone thought it was an original new title on the 3DS I don't think a 10 would be out of the question.

[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]Different standards in 2011 than in 1999.VendettaRed07

I don't even think its that

I think you have to review these types of games by how much it is worth it to spend the money on getting it even if you have the original. Like is there enough new content, do the new graphics really improve the game? That sort of thing. I don't think it is different standards that is effecting it because the only way to know how we would truly feel about it without the original influencing our opinion is to see someone who has never heard of it or played it before review it. Like honestly if Ocarina just came out, and someone thought it was an original new title on the 3DS I don't think a 10 would be out of the question.

[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]Different standards in 2011 than in 1999.VendettaRed07

I don't even think its that

I think you have to review these types of games by how much it is worth it to spend the money on getting it even if you have the original. Like is there enough new content, do the new graphics really improve the game? That sort of thing. I don't think it is different standards that is effecting it because the only way to know how we would truly feel about it without the original influencing our opinion is to see someone who has never heard of it or played it before review it. Like honestly if Ocarina just came out, and someone thought it was an original new title on the 3DS I don't think a 10 would be out of the question.

Some still don't get that standarts change, gaming evolves. What was great ten years ago, today is just meh.

edidili

How many times has this been true?

OoT standardized/revolutionized 3D worlds = Becomes masterpiece.
Oot 3D brought a timeless masterpiece into a modern world = IMO should not be reviewed.

Well the standards level isn't just a shift from one year to another I find that the standards of one game over another also change. I have seen sequels marked down because they are much the same game as the previous one, but if it were the first game or wasn't a sequel it would have scrore higher. Expectations are also played into account. I have seen a reviewer even state that their expectations were dashed when the game failed to meet what they wanted from the sequel, how is this fair in anyway. This is the general problem with critics, they have biases that often sway their choice of one score or another. I have seen games given good scores but have said to have a weak story and others, that have a similarly weak story have scathing reviews over it. My opinion on Orcarina of Time is that when the game came out, it was such a great game that the 10 was worthy, but a re-release of a fantastic game doesn't automatically justify a high score because we expect more from a game that is developed now in comparison to 10 years ago. Not to mention, it is a fact that should it have been remade into this version, the reviewer possibly thinks not.mike_on_mic

Especially about the sequels, I hate when a sequel which is better is marked lower for no real reason except that of course it's a sequel and similar to the previous game. Why can't they review a game for what it is: NOT everyone has played the prequel before, it makes it an unfair review. I wonder how many people then get to play the prequel and wonder how the hell the prequel scored better, when the sequel they played first was a lot better/improved.