Games if released now would score higher

Its clear that if most games in the past released today, they'd score worse. But how about the opposite? Do do you guys think there are games if released now would score better here? No changes to the game. I have a few:

Lost Odyssey

Lost Odyssey came out at a time where the PS2 was still going strong with JRPGs and the 360 was JRPGs like Eternal Sonata. Coupled with that it released right after holiday 2007 which saw games like SMG, Uncharted, Crysis, Mass Effect. The last great traiditional JRPG we got was Persona 4 in late 2008 and its been pretty barren. With FF13 being so different from JRPGs i think Lost Odyssey would be alot more appreciated releasing today. Could easily see it scoring 8.0.

Shadow of the Colossus

Released when Next-Gen hype had set into full gear. Seems like it would score better in the current market.

Do you guys have any?

I'm not feeling your thread. I would understand games that had some kind of bug that drags it down for the time of reviews but then gets patched and with those fixed elements it shines, or maybe even adding new content after the reviews that changes the game for better or something like that. But what you posted, I'm not feeling it.

I'm not feeling your thread. I would understand games that had some kind of bug that drags it down for the time of reviews but then gets patched and with those fixed elements it shines, or maybe even adding new content after the reviews that changes the game for better or something like that. But what you posted, I'm not feeling it.

glez13

ok maybe if we ignore the graphics... but still what MM scored here will always be an embarrassment for GS.

ok maybe if we ignore the graphics... but still what MM scored here will always be an embarrassment for GS.

alfredooo

I just looked and was surprised it barely got AA. I didn't like it as much as OoT, but I would have still given it a higher score than that. And I don't get GS's line:

"Majora's Mask is a great game, but it isn't for everybody."

As if any game is made for everyone?

Mario kart 64

I just looked and was surprised it barely got AA. I didn't like it as much as OoT, but I would have still given it a higher score than that. And I don't get GS's line:

"Majora's Mask is a great game, but it isn't for everybody."

As if any game is made for everyone?

BPoole96

That expression is not meant to be taken literally.

It means that (in the reviewer's opinion), a specific taste is needed to fully appreciate such a game.

[QUOTE="BPoole96"]I just looked and was surprised it barely got AA. I didn't like it as much as OoT, but I would have still given it a higher score than that. And I don't get GS's line:

"Majora's Mask is a great game, but it isn't for everybody."

As if any game is made for everyone?

IronBass

That expression is not meant to be taken literally.

It means that (in the reviewer's opinion), a specific taste is needed to fully appreciate such a game.

I'm not feeling your thread. I would understand games that had some kind of bug that drags it down for the time of reviews but then gets patched and with those fixed elements it shines, or maybe even adding new content after the reviews that changes the game for better or something like that. But what you posted, I'm not feeling it.

glez13

I really don't see why those two games (or any other game) would score higher without some changes being made. What's the reasoning behind such "feelings" (which is the only argument I'm reading so far)?IronBass

Its posterd under Lost Odyssey.

One reasoning, an abudance of a specific genre or a time frame with many superb games affects the score of other games. If said game were to release at a time with different conditions, would it score better. Thats what im asking. Im not asking for some kind of deep analytical response but just a simple opinion.

One reasoning, an abudance of a specific genre or a time frame with many superb games affects the score of other games. If said game were to release at a time with different conditions, would it score bettershutdown_202

[QUOTE="IronBass"]

[QUOTE="BPoole96"]I just looked and was surprised it barely got AA. I didn't like it as much as OoT, but I would have still given it a higher score than that. And I don't get GS's line:

"Majora's Mask is a great game, but it isn't for everybody."

As if any game is made for everyone?

jg4xchamp

That expression is not meant to be taken literally.

It means that (in the reviewer's opinion), a specific taste is needed to fully appreciate such a game.

Haha, hit the nail on the head there.

Anyway, one game I think would've scored higher is Team Fortress 2 (PC) due to the many updates, good support and lasting appeal. Although I do not necessarily disagree with its 8.5 score.

NIER.... Actually, I think Gamespot would still score it low for some reason, but this was arguably my GotY 2010, probably second to ME2.

For a moment i was thinking the opposite way. like if you said if games today that scored lower came out earlier would they score better.

and my answer if there was hardware that could play them. hell yeah they'd be amazing...

but i was wrong you meant the opposite way in which case i'm not sure.

:P Hah, I seen the topic title and the first game to hit my mind was the game you listed first in the OP..

Lost Odyssey fo sho and a sequel is way past overdue MS, get on it directly !!!!

Back in the day everyone was like "LOL not enough shooting compared to Doom 2", "LOL Far Cry jungle", "LOL Half-Life 2 gravi-gun and story". Today we see Dead Space ripping Doom 3 off and getting away as a "great horror adventure game".

Deus ex could be much better with todays technology

While i love Shadow of the Colossus, i've always thought the score is justified, hell, even now i think it deserves an 8.5, the game is short and it has some serious problems with camera and gameplay, don't get me wrong, the game has this amazing atmosphere and feeling that to this day i still love, but it has some technical problems hard to overlook.

Back in the day everyone was like "LOL not enough shooting compared to Doom 2", "LOL Far Cry jungle", "LOL Half-Life 2 gravi-gun and story". Today we see Dead Space ripping Doom 3 off and getting away as a "great horror adventure game".

Orchid87

Exactly my feeling, this game recieve to much hate, i played on the original Xbox and the graphics were pretty amazing, it has a nice atmospehere and while it gets repetitive and predictible it's a good game, and yes, when you play Dead Space is nothing else than Doom 3 with RE4 controls, not saying is a bad thing, but Doom 3 was punished for what it did back in the day only to be copied by a much more praised Dead Space, and again, both games are great.

Games that would score higher had they had access to better technology?

Well, Shadow of the Colossus would easily have been a AAAA game had it been HD with 60 fps and a working camera. Not that it already wasn't to me.

Exactly my feeling, this game recieve to much hate, i played on the original Xbox and the graphics were pretty amazing, it has a nice atmospehere and while it gets repetitive and predictible it's a good game, and yes, when you play Dead Space is nothing else than Doom 3 with RE4 controls, not saying is a bad thing, but Doom 3 was punished for what it did back in the day only to be copied by a much more praised Dead Space, and again, both games are great.

madsnakehhh

Back in the day everyone was like "LOL not enough shooting compared to Doom 2", "LOL Far Cry jungle", "LOL Half-Life 2 gravi-gun and story". Today we see Dead Space ripping Doom 3 off and getting away as a "great horror adventure game".

Orchid87

If released today Doom 3 would still have this faults and even worse would have crappy graphics. Now it would be like "LOL Crysis jungle" "LOL F.E.A.R." "LOL even an old game as Half-Life 2 has the gravity-gun and better storytelling". It would be worse not better and the "LOL not enough shooting compared to Doom 2" would still be there.

There is almost no way for a game to score higher if released later, as it did when it actually did without changes. Released earlier is the only thing that makes sense, later is a long shot, stretching it even farther than SW's limits. A different strory is thinking that for example GS scrored a game wrongfully, that is not related to what the TC is asking, and I see some have already posted stuff like that.

Games that would score higher had they had access to better technology?

Well, Shadow of the Colossus would easily have been a AAAA game had it been HD with 60 fps and a working camera. Not that it already wasn't to me.

foxhound_fox

No. Games that would score higher being the same way as they actually are but released later. Nonsense if you ask me.

No games that would score higher being the same way as they actually are but released later. Nonsense if you ask me.

glez13

there are many games that would have scored higher if they where released now.

Everything from Zelda TP to Shadow of the Colosuss who didnt get AAA because of the old systems.

To Majoras Mask, Beyond Good and Evil, Sly 2, Psychonauts, Killer7 ect. Who would have been more appreciated now, then they where back then.

But those where all games that scored fine imo, its just that they where released in times where the rating system actually worked :P instead of overrating every second game.

-

There are obviously some games which got a terrible score from GS back then, like Mario Kart 64 :evil:

No. Games that would score higher being the same way as they actually are but released later. Nonsense if you ask me.

glez13

Consider changing reviewers too. Remember, we're talking about just GS here. I just see the market conditions and quality of genre 'at that moment in time' affecting scores (just scores, not the review content).

I don't think that's how it works. FPS games are as abundant as a genre can be, yet the high scores keep coming for games that are practically clones. I would understand if a game would be released earlier (since it had the chance to pioneer certain elements), but later? Unlikely. Even if a specific genre gets less games, gaming as a whole keeps moving on.IronBass

Gaming always returns. Its more that it goes side to side in stead of continuously forward. The resurgance of 2D platforming for example.

To use LO again, What is it people ask for in their JRPG now days? HD towns, diverse sidequests, Freedom (although this can still mean linear). If you would have said this as a selling point in 07/08, youd probably be laughed at. But since then with the FFXIII fiasco its became a main point. I think thats enough for it to get a higher score today. Theres also the aspect of a game being ahead of its time, unique features arent appreciated.

Shenmue. It was released at a time when the concept of sandbox open-world gameplay had not yet caught on. Although the graphics and controls are outdated by now, I'm pretty sure it would score higher if it were released today.

[QUOTE="glez13"]

No. Games that would score higher being the same way as they actually are but released later. Nonsense if you ask me.

shutdown_202

Consider changing reviewers too. Remember, we're talking about just GS here. I just see the market conditions and quality of genre 'at that moment in time' affecting scores (just scores, not the review content).

I don't think that's how it works. FPS games are as abundant as a genre can be, yet the high scores keep coming for games that are practically clones. I would understand if a game would be released earlier (since it had the chance to pioneer certain elements), but later? Unlikely. Even if a specific genre gets less games, gaming as a whole keeps moving on.IronBass

Gaming always returns. Its more that it goes side to side in stead of continuously forward. The resurgance of 2D platforming for example.

To use LO again, What is it people ask for in their JRPG now days? HD towns, diverse sidequests, Freedom (although this can still mean linear). If you would have said this as a selling point in 07/08, youd probably be laughed at. But since then with the FFXIII fiasco its became a main point. I think thats enough for it to get a higher score today. Theres also the aspect of a game being ahead of its time, unique features arent appreciated.

But that's the problem those standards would still be there. There is almost no way for a game to score higher if released later. Standards go up not down, worst case scenario they remain the same for quite a while.

This is for the most part a "hey I'm mad X game didn't get Y score" thread in disguise. Doubting if an old reviewer did his job well, and if some of the new guys would give it a higher score is also a different story, that I would put in a similar category as the one I described.

But that's the problem those standards would still be there. There is almost no way for a game to score higher if released later. Standards go up not down, worst case scenario they remain the same for quite a while.

This is for the most part a "hey I'm mad X game didn't get Y score" thread in disguise. Doubting if an old reviewer did his job well, and if some of the new guys would give it a higher score is also a different story, that I would put in a similar category as the one I described.

glez13

lol, you spend too much time around fanboys.

And yes, standards go up but not as much as you're thinking. Its more down to tastes/trends changing. Just look at the Doom 3/Dead Space example. Why did Dead Space gain crictical acclaim for something Doom 3 did back in 2004? and in many cases, much better. Answers simple, Dead Space released during a time where there was nothing even remotely survival horror close by. This is why you see many devs pushing release dates for complete games up/down. Releasing at the right time is important.

Majora's mask probably would havereviewed better if it wasn't for the massive hype and acclaim surrounding Ocarina of Time.

Lost Odyssey definitely should have scoredhigher regardless of release date.It's superior tomost of the other AAJRPGs released this gen in many ways.

Another two games I would add are:

-Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together

-Final Fantasy Tactics

When these games were released back in the 1990s, they received mixed reviews, probably due to unfair comparisons to Final Fantasy VII. Back then, Tactics Ogre and FF Tactics only averaged 77% and 82% respectively at GameRankings. More recently, well over a decade later, the PSP ports of Tactics Ogre and FF Tactics have averaged nearly 90% and 89% respectively at GameRankings, which is an increase of nearly 13% for Tactics Ogre and 7% for FF Tactics. It seems reviewers today appreciate both games' tactical gameplay, hand-drawn art style, political storylines, and in Tactics Ogre's case, non-linear branching paths and moral decisions, more than reviewers did back in the 1990s.

Gaming always returns. Its more that it goes side to side in stead of continuously forward. The resurgance of 2D platforming for example.

To use LO again, What is it people ask for in their JRPG now days? HD towns, diverse sidequests, Freedom (although this can still mean linear). If you would have said this as a selling point in 07/08, youd probably be laughed at. But since then with the FFXIII fiasco its became a main point. I think thats enough for it to get a higher score today. Theres also the aspect of a game being ahead of its time, unique features arent appreciated.

shutdown_202

The things people asked for in JRPGs now is not too different than what was expected in 2007. People expected that exact same things in 2007, just like they expected them from FFXIII (2010). It didn't became a main point, it was always a main point, and that's why FFXIII didn't deliver, because it did well everything else except that.

And if unique features weren't appreciated then, why should they be now? In fact, there is even less chance for them to be appreciated, since with more games being release between then and now, those features, unique and ahead of its time then, may no longer be that now.

[QUOTE="shutdown_202"]Gaming always returns. Its more that it goes side to side in stead of continuously forward. The resurgance of 2D platforming for example.

To use LO again, What is it people ask for in their JRPG now days? HD towns, diverse sidequests, Freedom (although this can still mean linear). If you would have said this as a selling point in 07/08, youd probably be laughed at. But since then with the FFXIII fiasco its became a main point. I think thats enough for it to get a higher score today. Theres also the aspect of a game being ahead of its time, unique features arent appreciated.

IronBass

The things people asked for in JRPGs now is not too different than what was expected in 2007. People expected that exact same things in 2007, just like they expected them from FFXIII (2010). It didn't became a main point, it was always a main point, and that's why FFXIII didn't deliver, because it did well everything else except that.

And if unique features weren't appreciated then, why should they be now? In fact, there is even less chance for them to be appreciated, since with more games being release between then and now, those features, unique and ahead of its time then, may no longer be that now.

This thread......tbh i didnt put much thought into it, an idea that popped into my head and hit submit before i could think it through :P Theres alotta 'i thinks' because I wasnt really prepared to defend why it was possible but expecting to comment on peoples lists (Yeah, im punking out. Like a boss).

But i still stand by the change in wants for JRPGs. FFXIII was the turning point. Demand lists in 2007 & 2010 are different. Not just the genre progression type.

This thread......tbh i didnt put much thought into it, an idea that popped into my head and hit submit before i could think it through :P Theres alotta 'i thinks' because I wasnt really prepared to defend why it was possible but expecting to comment on peoples lists (Yeah, im punking out. Like a boss).

But i still stand by the change in wants for JRPGs. FFXIII was the turning point. Demand lists in 2007 & 2010 are different. Not just the genre progression type.

shutdown_202

FFXIII was not a turning point, not in terms of expectations, at least. The fact that FFXIII failed to deliver proves that.

People expected those things before (and from)FFXIII, and they still expect them now. That's the reason why FF failed.

No one expected/wanted/asked for overly linear JRPGs in 2007, they didn't in 2010 (which is why FFXIII was "poorly" received), and they don't now.

WWF No Mercy.

Gamespot gave it a 7.7 upon release. It's legacy today speaks for itself...

FFXIII was not a turning point, not in terms of expectations, at least. The fact that FFXIII failed to deliver proves that.

People expected those things before (and from)FFXIII, and they still expect them now. That's the reason why FF failed.

No one expected/wanted/asked for overly linear JRPGs in 2007, they didn't in 2010 (which is why FFXIII was "poorly" received), and they don't now.

IronBass

Ultra Linearity is something else. Nobody has ever wanted it in any given time. What im trying to say is demand for an expected feature back then is higher now. FFXIIIs failure has highlighted these features.

Towns, NPCs, Quests were synomous with JRPGs till FFXIII. FFXIII disturbed that. Its now something we want/ask for and not expect. Sort of like Health packs. With 2 devs coming out saying the cost of doing such in HD is extremely high, its becoming premium. Mistwalker did this with LO in 2007 and with demand for JRPGs on such things (HD consoles) being at its highest could LO score higher if it released now? I say its possible.

....I havent played JRPGs on handheld so im not sure on the situation there.

WWF No Mercy.

Gamespot gave it a 7.7 upon release. It's legacy today speaks for itself...

-Xeno-

Never understood the love for this game. Played it and wasnt feeling it. Thought WCW Revenge and Wrestlemania 2000 were much better.

THIS THREAD JUST GOT MUCH MORE AWESOME.

I don't know if SoTC would get a higher score, doubt it, but it sure as hell deserves it,

THIS THREAD JUST GOT MUCH MORE AWESOME.

I don't know if SoTC would get a higher score, doubt it, but it sure as hell deserves it,

Blabadon

Ultra Linearity is something else. Nobody has ever wanted it in any given time. What im trying to say is demand for an expected feature back then is higher now. FFXIIIs failure has highlighted these features.

Towns, NPCs, Quests were synomous with JRPGs till FFXIII. FFXIII disturbed that. Its now something we want/ask for and not expect. Sort of like Health packs. With 2 devs coming out saying the cost of doing such in HD is extremely high, its becoming premium. Mistwalker did this with LO in 2007 and with demand for JRPGs on such things (HD consoles) being at its highest could LO score higher if it released now? I say its possible.

....I havent played JRPGs on handheld so im not sure on the situation there.shutdown_202

All those features are still common, in plenty of RPG (not only Japanese).DQIX did it last year.Resonance of Fate did it last year. Radiant Historia is coming this month.

FFXIII didn't set a standard. FFXIII didn't disturb anything. It just failed. That's it. The industry and its expectations haven't changed.

[QUOTE="shutdown_202"]Ultra Linearity is something else. Nobody has ever wanted it in any given time. What im trying to say is demand for an expected feature back then is higher now. FFXIIIs failure has highlighted these features.

Towns, NPCs, Quests were synomous with JRPGs till FFXIII. FFXIII disturbed that. Its now something we want/ask for and not expect. Sort of like Health packs. With 2 devs coming out saying the cost of doing such in HD is extremely high, its becoming premium. Mistwalker did this with LO in 2007 and with demand for JRPGs on such things (HD consoles) being at its highest could LO score higher if it released now? I say its possible.

....I havent played JRPGs on handheld so im not sure on the situation there.IronBass

All those features are still common, in plenty of RPG (not only Japanese).DQIX did it last year.Resonance of Fate did it last year. Radiant Historia is coming this month.

FFXIII didn't set a standard. FFXIII didn't disturb anything. It just failed. That's it. The industry and its expectations haven't changed.

I'd say the gaming industry has changed its tastes over the years. A decade ago, linearity was seen as a good thing, to the point that open-ended RPGs like the SaGa series and Legend of Mana were criticized for their non-linearity, while relatively linear RPGs like Final Fantasy X were widely acclaimed. In recent years, on the other hand, linearity is seen as a negative thing, to the point that it's almost become a dirty word.