I downloaded Kirby's Adventure because of IGN's high review (just like I did with Gunstar Heroes). Fun NES game indeed. And also I don't own a Kirby game so it was worth it.
It's a great game but IGN forgets that it's 2007 when they review these games They're to blame for most people having buyers remorse when it comes to the Virtual Console
today is confusing at ign. kirby - 9.5 and sonic - 6.9 i am really confusedDrenrim
Not really, kirby is amazing for a snes game while sonic isn't as great for the wii. I haven't played anyone of them but I guess that's the way the IGN folkes are thinking.
I haven't played sonic yet, so I don't know about that review. Kirby, though I have played and I LOVE that game. It's cute, it's fun, it's got good music. It looks amazing for an NES game. Compared to games from today it's not worth a 9.5, but comparing it to other NES games, it's easily worth that.
I haven't played sonic yet, so I don't know about that review. Kirby, though I have played and I LOVE that game. It's cute, it's fun, it's got good music. It looks amazing for an NES game. Compared to games from today it's not worth a 9.5, but comparing it to other NES games, it's easily worth that. smileyryder34
Well that's the point, you're paying money now, not in the past. It should be judged on how it compares to games these days, it still hold up but it's not a 9.5
[QUOTE="smileyryder34"]I haven't played sonic yet, so I don't know about that review. Kirby, though I have played and I LOVE that game. It's cute, it's fun, it's got good music. It looks amazing for an NES game. Compared to games from today it's not worth a 9.5, but comparing it to other NES games, it's easily worth that. Jaysonguy
Well that's the point, you're paying money now, not in the past. It should be judged on how it compares to games these days, it still hold up but it's not a 9.5 This is where I would disagree a bit. I don't think VC games should be strictly compared to today's games. You're not paying for the same gameplay experience. You're paying for that classic experience. I do think how well it's help up should be considered somewhat, but for the most part no. I buy classic games for classic gameplay experiences so I want to know how that is rated. Kirby, I think, has held up well. The graphics themselves are dated, but that' to be expected. they don't look bad. I think you have to compare classic games to the games they competed against, not against what's out today. If you did that ALL VC games would get ratings in the 4's. Many of the gameplay elements in Kirby are found in games today, ie New super Mario Bros. They're similar games, yet Mario is well regarded as well. So I think the rating is somewhat justified.
[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"][QUOTE="smileyryder34"]I haven't played sonic yet, so I don't know about that review. Kirby, though I have played and I LOVE that game. It's cute, it's fun, it's got good music. It looks amazing for an NES game. Compared to games from today it's not worth a 9.5, but comparing it to other NES games, it's easily worth that. smileyryder34
Well that's the point, you're paying money now, not in the past. It should be judged on how it compares to games these days, it still hold up but it's not a 9.5 This is where I would disagree a bit. I don't think VC games should be strictly compared to today's games. You're not paying for the same gameplay experience. You're paying for that classic experience. I do think how well it's help up should be considered somewhat, but for the most part no. I buy classic games for classic gameplay experiences so I want to know how that is rated. Kirby, I think, has held up well. The graphics themselves are dated, but that' to be expected. they don't look bad. I think you have to compare classic games to the games they competed against, not against what's out today. If you did that ALL VC games would get ratings in the 4's. Many of the gameplay elements in Kirby are found in games today, ie New super Mario Bros. They're similar games, yet Mario is well regarded as well. So I think the rating is somewhat justified. I agree. They should be rated based on the fact that they are VC games, not retail games. You wouldn't want to judge XBLA games based on retail games would you? Of course not. They should have their own rating system. XBLA and VC games both.
I don't think people understand scoring or reviews. Some one else was shocked that F-Zero scored higher than a modern game too. Simply, if you grew up in the mid 80's and early 90's then you'd understand that games are rated by how enjoyable they are. Not by how they are technically impressive. The scoring is simple, IGN find Kirby's Adventure much more enjoyable than Sonic. Graphics, Sound and what ever else they judge games by aren't always based on technical achievement either. It's down to how appealing the game looks and how enjoyable and developed the sound is and how it fits into the game. This is why games like Super Metroid, The Legend Of Zelda, and the original Sonic the Hedgehog are still considered classics today. Because 15+ years down the line, they are still as enjoyable as ever.
[QUOTE="smileyryder34"][QUOTE="Jaysonguy"][QUOTE="smileyryder34"]I haven't played sonic yet, so I don't know about that review. Kirby, though I have played and I LOVE that game. It's cute, it's fun, it's got good music. It looks amazing for an NES game. Compared to games from today it's not worth a 9.5, but comparing it to other NES games, it's easily worth that. clownofpoetry
Well that's the point, you're paying money now, not in the past. It should be judged on how it compares to games these days, it still hold up but it's not a 9.5 This is where I would disagree a bit. I don't think VC games should be strictly compared to today's games. You're not paying for the same gameplay experience. You're paying for that forbidden I agree. They should be rated based on the fact that they are VC games, not retail games. You wouldn't want to judge XBLA games based on retail games would you? Of course not. They should have their own rating system. XBLA and VC games both.
Graphics and other aesthetic qualities shouldn't be compared to modern games, obviously -- they should be taken for what they are. However, I agree with the previous poster in that you're buying these games now. I want to know if a game is worth $5, $10, or whatever. I don't think Kirby deserves a 9.5, probably closer to an 8 -- but I'm pretty discriminating.
My point is that these games are in competition with modern games for your money, so wouldn't you want to know which is more fun? Games can be compared across eras in fun factor and general quality, and they should be, when you're paying for them.
Kirby's Adventure is awesome, IMO the most underrated game ever. IGN rated it from a 1993 perspective rather than a 2007 perspective and that's why it got a 9.5.
[QUOTE="Raiko101"]I don't think people understand scoring or reviews. Some one else was shocked that F-Zero scored higher than a modern game too. Simply, if you grew up in the mid 80's and early 90's then you'd understand that games are rated by how enjoyable they are. Not by how they are technically impressive. The scoring is simple, IGN find Kirby's Adventure much more enjoyable than Sonic. Graphics, Sound and what ever else they judge games by aren't always based on technical achievement either. It's down to how appealing the game looks and how enjoyable and developed the sound is and how it fits into the game. This is why games like Super Metroid, The Legend Of Zelda, and the original Sonic the Hedgehog are still considered classics today. Because 15+ years down the line, they are still as enjoyable as ever. Amazing post. And yay for Kirby's high rank!
today is confusing at ign. kirby - 9.5 and sonic - 6.9 i am really confusedDrenrim
maybe they see a lot more quality from the kirby game than the sonic one I've found sonic to be quite an empty experiance lately... haven't played secret rings tho maybe kirby is really really good?
[QUOTE="Drenrim"]today is confusing at ign. kirby - 9.5 and sonic - 6.9 i am really confusedmonty_4256
maybe they see a lot more quality from the kirby game than the sonic one I've found sonic to be quite an empty experiance lately... haven't played secret rings tho maybe kirby is really really good? If he played Kirby...he would understand ;)
It's a great game but IGN forgets that it's 2007 when they review these games They're to blame for most people having buyers remorse when it comes to the Virtual Console Jaysonguy
I don't think I would get buyers remorse for a VC game unless it was an N64 game because the others aren't very expensive, especially NES games
Kirby's Adventure deserves the 9.5. As a 2d side-scroller its one of the best, simply fun to play all the way through. As an example of its own genre it stands up against modern games, its easily as good as the New Mario Bros on the DS. And if 9.5 equals a must buy game, at $5 it definitly is a must buy game...unless you still have your NES cart like me!
Log in to comment