Should Gamespot Re-Review all these old games for the VC?

I say no...it's like comparing GTA3 to GTA: SA...

All the retro games should be left alone.

Thoughts?

Lol... what is it with the sudden rush of polls, that's like 5 in the last 5 minutes...

Also, someone just got told on another poll, it's "I coudn't* care less", Not " I could care less"

You know I gotta agree (flame shield on). It would be different if there were added features, or something different that effects gameplay. But logically what you're saying is: we're going to review the same game twice, with the only difference between then and now being 10-20 years has passed.shsonline

If they are reviewing XBLA games then they should review VC games.Chubnasty

I say no...it's like comparing GTA3 to GTA: SA...

All the retro games should be left alone.

Thoughts?

Shadow_op

I don't see a problem. Every review is a point-in-time review. A new review of a game doesn't diminish its old score...but it does give us an idea of how well it has withstood the test of time.

The only people who should take issue with VC review are Cows, since they get pwned not only with Wii games but also 10+ year old VC titles.

If they are reviewing XBLA games then they should review VC games.Chubnasty

Yes, for reasons too numerous to list. But I'll hit some main points anyway.

1. You are spending $5-$10 on a game you may not have played, or don't know about. This is reason enough to review these old games. Anything before the N64 doesn't have a review by GS. I don't know if Wario's Woods is any good. I didn't even know Wario had an NES game. I'm not going to pay $5 for something I didn't know if I'll like.

2. Times change. Believe it or not, you aren't playing the game in 1993. It's 2007, and you're buying it in 2007, after having played better games. I doesn't really matter if the game was good way back when, if it's not good today, then why buy it for something other than nostalgia?

3. Extras, and emulation errors may affect the game. Street Fighter 2 was pretty bad even though the original game was great. Like wise, thinks added like online can really help the game.

I think they should review the ones that haven't already been reviewed, like the SNES games and NES games. The N64 games already have ratings, so they shouldn't review them twice..mis3ry

Yes, for reasons too numerous to list. But I'll hit some main points anyway.

1. You are spending $5-$10 on a game you may not have played, or don't know about. This is reason enough to review these old games. Anything before the N64 doesn't have a review by GS. I don't know if Wario's Woods is any good. I didn't even know Wario had an NES game. I'm not going to pay $5 for something I didn't know if I'll like.

2. Times change. Believe it or not, you aren't playing the game in 1993. It's 2007, and you're buying it in 2007, after having played better games. I doesn't really matter if the game was good way back when, if it's not good today, then why buy it for something other than nostalgia?

3. Extras, and emulation errors may affect the game. Street Fighter 2 was pretty bad even though the original game was great. Like wise, thinks added like online can really help the game.

YellowPik

1. Disagree. Just because you haven't played a game doesn't mean GS doesn't have a review score for it.

2. Disagree. Times change but scores shouldn't. Otherwise, why not just go back and review every game for every system before 2007?

My largest problem with the re-reviews is that I don't feel like they're taking the original price into account.  I

Super Mario World was rated as 8.5 and costs $8

New Super Mario Brothers 9.0 but costs $35

I never played Super Mario World on the Snes and played it for the first time on the Wii.  I felt that World had more depth AND it's $27 cheaper.  That's insane!