Has anyone else noticed this? Just look at some of the reviews
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Has anyone else noticed this? Just look at some of the reviews
VitamiX
Yeah, I disagree with a lot of the reviews. but eh, I pretty much know what looks appealing to me and base my decision on that.
Only go by the reviews on vc-reviews.com for Virtual Console Reviews and IGN for Wii reviews please.ciaran22
I don't agree, all those reviews are is fan service to make the people who owned the games before happy.
Gamespot is the only place that judges the games on how they hold up today. Not crafting their reviews so they're tame enough for buyers in years gone by.
If you spend today's money on these games then you judge them on today's scale. No one should give points for nostalgia.
Personally I think it's pretty stupid to see anyone review a V.C. game, I mean the big media sites anyway. How can they, they already reviewed the game once, nothing has changed since the first release on consoles. It's "nice" for some people that don't know what to buy (though they should just read the original review), but certain games were great once and now they think they aren't today. (That might do with their age, but still, to me the integrity of the reveiw depends upon it staying over time) I mean even though they might not be what they'd like now, how can you re-reveiw it, it just shows us that no score matters, the games will always change score over time. So no one should bother about scoring them in the first place. The system must be very faulty if the score changes. You know what I mean? They should just tell us if the game is still fun, and to go read the original review. Though I think I kind of understand why they do reveiw them. Oh well.
Personally I think it's pretty stupid to see anyone review a V.C. game, I mean the big media sites anyway. How can they, they already reviewed the game once, nothing has changed since the first release on consoles. It's "nice" for some people that don't know what to buy (though they should just read the original review), but certain games were great once and now they think they aren't today. (That might do with their age, but still, to me the integrity of the reveiw depends upon it staying over time) I mean even though they might not be what they'd like now, how can you re-reveiw it, it just shows us that no score matters, the games will always change score over time. So no one should bother about scoring them in the first place. The system must be very faulty if the score changes. You know what I mean? They should just tell us if the game is still fun, and to go read the original review. Though I think I kind of understand why they do reveiw them. Oh well.
DSandWii
That just means that you want these graded on nostalgia and that's fine but it's also screwing over the consumer.
As for the part where you said if a score changes it's faulty? No
If a score changes it's because it's measured to the level of gaming today, not 20 years ago.
[QUOTE="DSandWii"]Personally I think it's pretty stupid to see anyone review a V.C. game, I mean the big media sites anyway. How can they, they already reviewed the game once, nothing has changed since the first release on consoles. It's "nice" for some people that don't know what to buy (though they should just read the original review), but certain games were great once and now they think they aren't today. (That might do with their age, but still, to me the integrity of the reveiw depends upon it staying over time) I mean even though they might not be what they'd like now, how can you re-reveiw it, it just shows us that no score matters, the games will always change score over time. So no one should bother about scoring them in the first place. The system must be very faulty if the score changes. You know what I mean? They should just tell us if the game is still fun, and to go read the original review. Though I think I kind of understand why they do reveiw them. Oh well.
Jaysonguy
That just means that you want these graded on nostalgia and that's fine but it's also screwing over the consumer.
As for the part where you said if a score changes it's faulty? No
If a score changes it's because it's measured to the level of gaming today, not 20 years ago.
Yeah I know, I read your post above after I posted mine. It's cool to be able to see both sets. Today's score and olden days score. Oh and it really only screws over the uneducated consumer. Well the new gamer consumer, new as in they don't know anything about the game from the past, so by going off of the old reveiw they may not like the game like you said.
[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"][QUOTE="DSandWii"]Personally I think it's pretty stupid to see anyone review a V.C. game, I mean the big media sites anyway. How can they, they already reviewed the game once, nothing has changed since the first release on consoles. It's "nice" for some people that don't know what to buy (though they should just read the original review), but certain games were great once and now they think they aren't today. (That might do with their age, but still, to me the integrity of the reveiw depends upon it staying over time) I mean even though they might not be what they'd like now, how can you re-reveiw it, it just shows us that no score matters, the games will always change score over time. So no one should bother about scoring them in the first place. The system must be very faulty if the score changes. You know what I mean? They should just tell us if the game is still fun, and to go read the original review. Though I think I kind of understand why they do reveiw them. Oh well.
DSandWii
That just means that you want these graded on nostalgia and that's fine but it's also screwing over the consumer.
As for the part where you said if a score changes it's faulty? No
If a score changes it's because it's measured to the level of gaming today, not 20 years ago.
Yeah I know, I read your post above after I posted mine. It's cool to be able to see both sets. Today's score and olden days score. Oh and it really only screws over the uneducated consumer. Well the new gamer consumer, new as in they don't know anything about the game from the past, so by going off of the old reveiw they may not like the game like you said.
True, and another point is that if people were to just lower their standards just a bit, (by about 7 to 20 years of technology), there are some really great games that were considered some of the finest games when they were released, (like Super Mario 64, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Super Mario World, etc). Do realize that these were once actual games that would sell on retail for the same price and have as much depth as games today, and are not just some other simple arcade game on Xbox Live or PlayStation Network. Really, even by today's standards, some of these games still hold up and are great, and $5 or $10 for a 7.0 or 8.5 game is considered a bargain, but if you were to appreciate these games as they were several years ago, you could be buying and playing some of the greatest gaming experiences to this day for the price of a latte at Starbucks.
Dont use GS reviews. I use http://www.vc-reviews.com/
Great resource for Virtual Console games and reviews. They belong to an archive of a defunct british magazine that actually reviewed the games originally when they came out. a lot of the magazine reviews are scanned in and can be viewed on the gamespace of any VC game.
[QUOTE="ciaran22"]Only go by the reviews on vc-reviews.com for Virtual Console Reviews and IGN for Wii reviews please.Jaysonguy
I don't agree, all those reviews are is fan service to make the people who owned the games before happy.
Gamespot is the only place that judges the games on how they hold up today. Not crafting their reviews so they're tame enough for buyers in years gone by.
If you spend today's money on these games then you judge them on today's scale. No one should give points for nostalgia.
I agree with Jaysonguy. I want to know how these games are right now because I'm going to play them right now. Besides we should know if the emulation is accurate and if the price is right for the game, not to mention that Gamespot didn't review games before the Playstation era. If I had a time machine I'd go compare games to others in that time period.
I disagree with Gamespot's score of Super Metriod (I would have given it a 9.0) but if I got upset every time Gamespot gave a game .5 less than I did, I'd be an idiot.
I never agree with VC scores on GS.
Paper Mario 9 - This didn't really deserve AAA
Ocarina of time 8,9 (WTF? They just didn't want to give a Zelda AAA?)
Super metroid 8,5 - This deserved AAA
And on real console
Wario ware 9 - Didn't reserve AAA
Twilight Princess - I can't see why this shouldn't be AAA
And BTW, it's not only on the Wii. Imo the Ps3 is getting pretty bad screwed too
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment