Do you trust retro game reviews?

I was reading some old game reviews on IGN and I was surprised how biased some of them are. Same goes for GameSpot and the youtube reviewers.

So do you trust them or do you use other ways to find out if you like an older game?

I personally think it's best to watch some videos of the game and hear some personal opinions about it and then decide for yourself.

Ive pointed out several times on some reviews I feel were biased/false from IGN and Gamespot at that time, some of them include, Last Bronx, Burning Rnagers, Street Fighter Alpha 3, Astal , Dead Or Alive, Winter Heat.

also there are some games where one version of the game got reviewed , but not the other, even if the other is different (Duke Nukem 3D is an example of this)

so no, I don't fully trust old game reviews,

I definetly don't. I just watch them for entertainment. A good portion of the games AVGN and Irate Gamer tear apart are actually good games.

I definetly don't. I just watch them for entertainment. A good portion of the games AVGN and Irate Gamer tear apart are actually good games.

Emerald_Warrior

You mean biased like the Grandia one whose title says the game "beats Final Fantasy VII in all the ways that count"?

Nah.

I don't trust them, they used to be very biased and underrated a lot of great games.

never i use my better judgment

Reviewing something that is 100% opinion is never going to turn out that well. Though, the farther back you go on this site, the more inconsistent it becomes.

In the beginning before to enrich my collection i trusted many times and i can say i had surprises because i bought some games based on great scores like baldur's gate dark alliance on ign well many games i kept other ones i released cause i don't identify any important qualities in those particular games, god of war ii is another example of overrated game same goes to fahrenheit that game is at the end dull no lasting appeal

from the IGN review of DOA PS1

http://uk.psx.ign.com/articles/152/152306p1.html

"Graphically, it's one of the best-looking games since Tobal 2. The Model 2 graphics have ported over to the PlayStation better than they've ever been on the Saturn, and we suspect Sega would be in a much better position today if it just developed its games on the PlayStation."

first off , the reviewer is wrong as Ive proven numerous times, but 2nd, the latter statement is blatant bias, and I have to wonder if a similar comment about the GC in 2004 or the PS3 in 2008 would have been considerd ok.

makes you think the reviews were written by a bunch of 8 year olds, they are about as mature and calculated as that......

from the IGN review of DOA PS1

http://uk.psx.ign.com/articles/152/152306p1.html

"Graphically, it's one of the best-looking games since Tobal 2. The Model 2 graphics have ported over to the PlayStation better than they've ever been on the Saturn, and we suspect Sega would be in a much better position today if it just developed its games on the PlayStation."

first off , the reviewer is wrong as Ive proven numerous times, but 2nd, the latter statement is blatant bias, and I have to wonder if a similar comment about the GC in 2004 or the PS3 in 2008 would have been considerd ok.

makes you think the reviews were written by a bunch of 8 year olds, they are about as mature and calculated as that......

Darkman2007

The PS version has more characters and transparency effects.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

from the IGN review of DOA PS1

http://uk.psx.ign.com/articles/152/152306p1.html

"Graphically, it's one of the best-looking games since Tobal 2. The Model 2 graphics have ported over to the PlayStation better than they've ever been on the Saturn, and we suspect Sega would be in a much better position today if it just developed its games on the PlayStation."

first off , the reviewer is wrong as Ive proven numerous times, but 2nd, the latter statement is blatant bias, and I have to wonder if a similar comment about the GC in 2004 or the PS3 in 2008 would have been considerd ok.

makes you think the reviews were written by a bunch of 8 year olds, they are about as mature and calculated as that......

Panzer_Zwei

The PS version has more characters and transparency effects.

[QUOTE="Panzer_Zwei"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

from the IGN review of DOA PS1

http://uk.psx.ign.com/articles/152/152306p1.html

"Graphically, it's one of the best-looking games since Tobal 2. The Model 2 graphics have ported over to the PlayStation better than they've ever been on the Saturn, and we suspect Sega would be in a much better position today if it just developed its games on the PlayStation."

first off , the reviewer is wrong as Ive proven numerous times, but 2nd, the latter statement is blatant bias, and I have to wonder if a similar comment about the GC in 2004 or the PS3 in 2008 would have been considerd ok.

makes you think the reviews were written by a bunch of 8 year olds, they are about as mature and calculated as that......

Darkman2007

The PS version has more characters and transparency effects.

Yeah, because the game is an arcade type short game.

But in all honestly, as far as I can remember that has always been the western media mindset about arcade type games or ports. They've never been content with even arcade perfect translations like the Japanese. For some reason they always expected programmers to develop a totally new chunk of the game exclusively for consoles.

The problem is that they've always thought that those games lack value for console standards, which I completely and utterly disagree. Even on the Dreamcast a lot of excellent arcade games got average review scores only because they retained their original length.

As far as Burning Rangers is concerned. I think the game delivered an innovative and pretty awesome gameplay experience back then. Being able to move smoothly (even in the dark) through a maze you're not familair with thanks to the game's navigation system was really cool. Actually, it's a shame that game concept wasn't exploited any further.

I personally really liked Burning Rangers, it was fun , looked great, and had a fairly unique type of gameplay with the whole fire fighting mechanism.

why it got a 6 I will never knew (though as a side note, it seems alot of the biased Saturn reviews were done pretty much be the same person or 2)

and Im not sure how much more they added to DOA PS1 , more characters, thats about it, as far as I remember it didn't have any extra gameplay modes (though I might have to replay that version to find out) and it looked worse overall. if you read the Saturn review it gives the tone of "yeah , its ok , the graphics are decent, it plays ok"

when you read the PS review the tone is more like "this is a great game, way better then that rubbish Saturn version"

There's another hilarious review here or on IGN, but I cannot remember which one.

But basically, the reviewer bases his entire review on how the game should've been on the Playstaition.

Not like some of those supposedly dedicated hardcare player site reviews are any better though. A lot of those guys also don't have single a clue about what they're talking abut.

I once read this review about MUSHA ALESTE on a popular shooting game site and the review had the idea that the game came after Seriei Senshi Spriggan on the PCE.

There's another hilarious review here or on IGN, but I cannot remember which one.

But basically, the review bases his entire review on how the game should've been on the Playstaition.

Panzer_Zwei

User reviews and scores are 20 times as accurate than the site review

User reviews and scores are 20 times as accurate than the site review

bigM10231

^ Not to mention that a lot of people seem to write their reviews after having played the game for 15 mins.

[QUOTE="Panzer_Zwei"]

There's another hilarious review here or on IGN, but I cannot remember which one.

But basically, the review bases his entire review on how the game should've been on the Playstaition.

Darkman2007

The PS1 was more powerful though, and allowed multiple discs to store more space. And a lot of multipats were designed for the PS1 and then ported to the N64 the best they could. And it didn't always turn out well, so I'd say it's good reason these games would score higher on PS1. but N64 I think got more high exlusive scores.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Panzer_Zwei"]

There's another hilarious review here or on IGN, but I cannot remember which one.

But basically, the review bases his entire review on how the game should've been on the Playstaition.

lazyathew

The PS1 was more powerful though, and allowed multiple discs to store more space. And a lot of multipats were designed for the PS1 and then ported to the N64 the best they could. And it didn't always turn out well, so I'd say it's good reason these games would score higher on PS1. but N64 I think got more high exlusive scores.

I don't think there was much bias against the N64.

lazyathew

How is this not bias:

http://www.gamespot.com/n64/driving/diddykongracing/index.html

http://apps.metacritic.com/games/platforms/n64/diddykongracing

The PS1 was more powerful though

lazyathew

N64 was almost three times stronger than PS1. It's not even debatable which system was stronger. PS1 just had the CD space advantage over N64.

[QUOTE="lazyathew"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] its pretty obvious game magazines/websites at the time were strongly against the Saturn (and even N64 for that matter), they just seem to like anything on the PS1.Darkman2007

The PS1 was more powerful though, and allowed multiple discs to store more space. And a lot of multipats were designed for the PS1 and then ported to the N64 the best they could. And it didn't always turn out well, so I'd say it's good reason these games would score higher on PS1. but N64 I think got more high exlusive scores.

You sure N64 is more powerful? Since most multiplatform games had to remove cutscenes and framrate to be ported to the N64, like Toy Story 2 and Mega Man Legends to name a couple. Square left to work on PS1 for Final Fantasy VII so it could have the better graphics and lenghth. Mega Man also had to swicth to PS1 for cutscenes.

Maybe at a standtill, N64 might have better looking 3D, but not by much from what I've noticed, but PS1 certainly seems to have a better framrate.

[QUOTE="lazyathew"]

I don't think there was much bias against the N64.

nameless12345

How is this not bias:

http://www.gamespot.com/n64/driving/diddykongracing/index.html

http://apps.metacritic.com/games/platforms/n64/diddykongracing

Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn is a similer thing that happened this gen. It got a 6, when most people gave it an 8 or a 9. But Honestly, I think it's clear the guy who reviewed it just shouldn't review stradegy games, but maybe he is all they had available at the time I dunno. All the 8.5's Gamespot gives the Wii clearly shows they are not biased.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="lazyathew"]I don't think there was much bias against the N64. That had a lot of very high rated exlusives. Like Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, and much more.

The PS1 was more powerful though, and allowed multiple discs to store more space. And a lot of multipats were designed for the PS1 and then ported to the N64 the best they could. And it didn't always turn out well, so I'd say it's good reason these games would score higher on PS1. but N64 I think got more high exlusive scores.

lazyathew

You sure N64 is more powerful?

I think the specs speak for themselves:

N64:

- CPU 64-bit93.75 Mhz NEC VR4300

- GPU 62.5 Mhz SGI RCP

- RAM 4MB 500 Mhz RD-RAM (up to 8MB with expansion pak)

PS1:

- CPU 32-bit 33.8688 MHz MIPS R3000A

- GPU Unknown

- RAM 2MB main RAM

I find it hard to believe people still think the PS1 was stronger than N64. It's like saying the PS2 was stronger than Xbox. PS1 just had the CD advantage and was easier to develop for.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="lazyathew"]

I don't think there was much bias against the N64.

lazyathew

How is this not bias:

http://www.gamespot.com/n64/driving/diddykongracing/index.html

http://apps.metacritic.com/games/platforms/n64/diddykongracing

Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn is a similer thing that happened this gen. It got a 6, when most people gave it an 8 or a 9. But Honestly, I think it's clear the guy who reviewed it just shouldn't review stradegy games, but maybe he is all they had available at the time I dunno. All the 8.5's Gamespot gives the Wii clearly shows they are not biased.

If they want to provide informative and interesting reviews it just doesn't cut it if they simply say "I don't like it".

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="lazyathew"]

I don't think there was much bias against the N64.

lazyathew

How is this not bias:

http://www.gamespot.com/n64/driving/diddykongracing/index.html

http://apps.metacritic.com/games/platforms/n64/diddykongracing

Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn is a similer thing that happened this gen. It got a 6, when most people gave it an 8 or a 9. But Honestly, I think it's clear the guy who reviewed it just shouldn't review stradegy games, but maybe he is all they had available at the time I dunno. All the 8.5's Gamespot gives the Wii clearly shows they are not biased.

like I said, all of those games you mentioned were either first or 2nd party, they get less bias in general.

and yes , the N64 is more powerful , the fact that its newer by almost 2 years should say that (though it was ready by late 1995 , so not quite that) but in most ways the N64 is more powerful . I could start listing specs , but it might bore you :P

the reason why some ports to the N64 are worse are mainly why most ports to the Saturn worse, because the PS1 was the lead platform , and then a sloppy port that doesnt use the system correctly was done for the other systems.

As someone else pointed out: Despite the higher specs why is it that N64 can't support a lot CGI-Movie scenes, and why does it have blurrier textures?

[QUOTE="lazyathew"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] the N64 is a more powerful system , saying the PS1 is the more powerful system (at least in 3D) is ludicrous, even if the system had its various bottlenecks (no sound chip and limited texture RAM being 2 of them) but notice that its mostly the Nintendo or Rare games that got high scores, alot of 3rd party games got harsh treatment. Saturn had it even worse, even Sega's gamaes were treated pretty poorly, nevermind 3rd party games.nameless12345

You sure N64 is more powerful?

I think the specs speak for themselves:

N64:

- CPU 64-bit93.75 Mhz NEC VR4300

- GPU 62.5 Mhz SGI RCP

- RAM 4MB 500 Mhz RD-RAM (up to 8MB with expansion pak)

PS1:

- CPU 32-bit 33.8688 MHz MIPS R3000A

- GPU Unknown

- RAM 2MB main RAM

I find it hard to believe people still think the PS1 was stronger than N64. It's like saying the PS2 was stronger than Xbox. PS1 just had the CD advantage and was easier to develop for.

The left picture shows the quality of texture filtering on the N64 and the right on the PS1:

The PS1 also didn't have any Z-buffering and couldn't do some effects the N64 could in hardware.

Mario 64 metal mario:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30IcRSxJ-X0&feature=related

Wave Race 64 water:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJ-5hZmzWzM&feature=related

Donkey Kong 64 lighting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkUvVkqHQT4&feature=related

Majora's Mask draw distance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bo5le8a15Ik

N64 could do thrice the polygon count in PS1's own quality (without texture smoothing).

As someone else pointed out: Despite the higher specs why is it that N64 can't support a lot CGI-Movie scenes, and why does it have blurrier textures?

Emerald_Warrior

Carts.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="lazyathew"]

You sure N64 is more powerful?

lazyathew

I think the specs speak for themselves:

N64:

- CPU 64-bit93.75 Mhz NEC VR4300

- GPU 62.5 Mhz SGI RCP

- RAM 4MB 500 Mhz RD-RAM (up to 8MB with expansion pak)

PS1:

- CPU 32-bit 33.8688 MHz MIPS R3000A

- GPU Unknown

- RAM 2MB main RAM

I find it hard to believe people still think the PS1 was stronger than N64. It's like saying the PS2 was stronger than Xbox. PS1 just had the CD advantage and was easier to develop for.

Like I said - the content missed out due to cartridge space limitations. PS1 has a better frame-rate because it doesn't use any texture filtering, Z-buffering and anti-aliasing so the games may run faster. It's like on the PC - higher settings will lag more.

If you want to read about N64's problems here is a good link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_64#Programming_difficulties

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

As someone else pointed out: Despite the higher specs why is it that N64 can't support a lot CGI-Movie scenes, and why does it have blurrier textures?

nameless12345

Carts.

[QUOTE="lazyathew"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

How is this not bias:

http://www.gamespot.com/n64/driving/diddykongracing/index.html

http://apps.metacritic.com/games/platforms/n64/diddykongracing

Darkman2007

Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn is a similer thing that happened this gen. It got a 6, when most people gave it an 8 or a 9. But Honestly, I think it's clear the guy who reviewed it just shouldn't review stradegy games, but maybe he is all they had available at the time I dunno. All the 8.5's Gamespot gives the Wii clearly shows they are not biased.

like I said, all of those games you mentioned were either first or 2nd party, they get less bias in general.

and yes , the N64 is more powerful , the fact that its newer by almost 2 years should say that (though it was ready by late 1995 , so not quite that) but in most ways the N64 is more powerful . I could start listing specs , but it might bore you :P

the reason why some ports to the N64 are worse are mainly why most ports to the Saturn worse, because the PS1 was the lead platform , and then a sloppy port that doesnt use the system correctly was done for the other systems.

And were they really just simply THAT much more sloppy then today's ports? Even today, aren't most games HD multiplatsdeveloped for either the 360 or PS3 then ported to the other? I don't think you're lieing to me by the way. Your probably right, I don't know much about it, I'm just confused.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

[QUOTE="lazyathew"]How IS that biased? Gamespot just didn't like that particular game as much as most people. Or they got the wrong person to review it, I dunno.Why would they rate DK 64 a 9, Ocarina of Time a 10, and Goldenye an 9.8 if they were biased?

Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn is a similer thing that happened this gen. It got a 6, when most people gave it an 8 or a 9. But Honestly, I think it's clear the guy who reviewed it just shouldn't review stradegy games, but maybe he is all they had available at the time I dunno. All the 8.5's Gamespot gives the Wii clearly shows they are not biased.

lazyathew

like I said, all of those games you mentioned were either first or 2nd party, they get less bias in general.

and yes , the N64 is more powerful , the fact that its newer by almost 2 years should say that (though it was ready by late 1995 , so not quite that) but in most ways the N64 is more powerful . I could start listing specs , but it might bore you :P

the reason why some ports to the N64 are worse are mainly why most ports to the Saturn worse, because the PS1 was the lead platform , and then a sloppy port that doesnt use the system correctly was done for the other systems.

And were they really just simply THAT much more sloppy then today's ports? Even today, aren't most games HD multiplatsdeveloped for either the 360 or PS3 then ported to the other? I don't think you're lieing to me by the way. Your probably right, I don't know much about it, I'm just confused.

[QUOTE="lazyathew"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

like I said, all of those games you mentioned were either first or 2nd party, they get less bias in general.

and yes , the N64 is more powerful , the fact that its newer by almost 2 years should say that (though it was ready by late 1995 , so not quite that) but in most ways the N64 is more powerful . I could start listing specs , but it might bore you :P

the reason why some ports to the N64 are worse are mainly why most ports to the Saturn worse, because the PS1 was the lead platform , and then a sloppy port that doesnt use the system correctly was done for the other systems.

Darkman2007

And were they really just simply THAT much more sloppy then today's ports? Even today, aren't most games HD multiplatsdeveloped for either the 360 or PS3 then ported to the other? I don't think you're lieing to me by the way. Your probably right, I don't know much about it, I'm just confused.

But still, my argument still pretty much stands about the bias thing. Multiplats score higher on PS1 for good reason. AndMany Third Parties prefered the PS1, so yeah the highest scoring games on N64 would be 1st and 2nd party. And they had a lot of them.

Didn't they rate Mario Kart 64 like a 6.5? That's pretty crazy, and just makes 0 sense.

well here is what happens when a game gets ported from the Saturn to the PS1 , Sillhouette Mirage

Saturn

PS1

Saturn

PS1

Id imagine the Saturn version used the VDP2 to do the backgrounds, and the programmers never bothered/couldnt replicate it on the PS1 (imo, a bit of both actually)

I definetly don't. I just watch them for entertainment. A good portion of the games AVGN and Irate Gamer tear apart are actually good games.

Emerald_Warrior

Didn't they rate Mario Kart 64 like a 6.5? That's pretty crazy, and just makes 0 sense.

magnax1

Trust them? As in take them as some sort of indication of a game's quality? Then, not really and certainly not in isolation.

They sometimes give an interesting point of view. They sometimes remind me that this and that has been done before and better, or that something else is novel and should be kept in mind. They sometimes compare this element or that to some other media, and sometimes allow me to better place and categorize the game in my own mind.

If your looking for consistency in scoring it depends almost entirely on who the critic sees as their primary audience. The more obscure the critics seems to think the system is the more blunt, more critical, and less reasonable the reviewers become. Almost as if they're treating each game's review as a test of whether that game equals a system worthy purchase. Cheap shots taken at the system itself become much more common and the game is measured by how it uses the system rather than strictly on its merits as a game.