I own the PS3 version. I just could not hold out until I bought a Wii U, but I almost wish I would have...maybe. I am having a great time with the game so far, but the Murphy levels on PS3 are a sour spot in a mostly sweet game. The Murphy stages come off as cheap, especially in how you have to constantly move your thumb from "X" to "O," controlling both Rayman as he jumps over deadly obstacles and Murphy who handles hazards. It's a frustrating a mess, and this isn't the only issue with the game. I'll not talk about the other things here, though. I know that Origins and Legends were reviewed by two different reviewers, but I am surprised, not only that Gamespot gave this a higher score than Origins, but that the rest of the industry's general consensus seems to agree. Maybe it'll pick up some steam, but something about the PS3 version, namely the Murphy stages, scream: "This game was meant for Wii U, and that's why this feature holds the game back!" Then again, if the Wii U version's Murphy levels are lesser, then it must borderline horrible!
Regardless of the rating scale, the same arguments will continue. "That game got an eight, but it's no way as good as this game that got an eight!" That said, multiple reviews is good. It makes it seem as if gaming opinions are truly opinions instead of one guy or gal punctuating it with no further say, with additional perspectives simply being agreements with the reviewer or putting up a flame shield for them due to backlash.
A "ten" can be different depending on the reviewer. Everytime a game receives a ten on this site (which is rare), there is always someone in the comments who says, "This game is not a ten!" Go look at Super Mario Galaxy 2's comments, for example. I just hope that you don't poop on folks who would give it that score, because then you're no different than those who dish out the "It doesn't deserve that score" argument on every review on the internet. If someone can adequately explain why they rate it such, then their opinion is just as legitimate as anyone else's.
When it comes to aging, I think games get the worst of it, though. In the literature classes I take, we don't sit around and complain about how archaic the grammar and language is; we focus on the art of the language and the story's content and the ways in which it can be read and interpreted. Games on the other hand are judged more harshly as they age, but I reckon that's just a flaw of the medium itself, which relies so heavily upon graphics, mechanics, and certain hardware limitations, which continually evolve overtime. It's an interactive medium, not a passive one, and if the experiences are held back by aged ideas and technology, then it means that newer experiences will continue to outdo the old ones. But I think we need to find a way to appreciate masterpieces from the past as masterpieces instead of dissing them altogether. If we can't, then gaming history is not worth observing, and gaming itself is garbage compared to other entertainment/learning mediums
It seems like he was more unimpressed by unnecessary implementations than by it being a game that looks to tickle the nostalgia bone. And I have no problem with the review and by judging this new game with modern standards.
When it comes to aging, I think games get the worst of it, though. In the literature classes I take, we don't sit around and complain about how archaic the grammar and language is; we focus on the art of the language and the story's content and the ways in which it can be read and interpreted.
Games on the other hand are judged more harshly as they age, but I reckon that's just a flaw of the medium itself, which relies so heavily upon graphics, mechanics, and certain hardware limitations, which continually evolve overtime. It's an interactive medium, not a passive one, and if the experiences are held back by aged ideas and technology, then it means that newer experiences will continue to outdo the old ones. But I think we need to find a way to appreciate masterpieces from the past as masterpieces instead of dissing them altogether. If we can't, then gaming history is not worth observing, and gaming itself is garbage compared to other entertainment/learning mediums.
I like my red Mustang convertible. But let's say I want to put in a new sound system and paint it black. I take it to a shop and the workers only paint half my car and install half the sound system. And on top of that, they install a DVD player and screen in the passenger floorboard. I say, "This is horrible! You didn't finish the job and there is unecessary crap installed in my car! I hate this so much that I wish I had never bought my car in the first place!" The last sentence in the complaint wouldn't make much sense.
Also, he says good things about the NES version in his most recent article.
My comment was drenched in sarcasm, so you either missed it or are replying with more sarcasm in a less obvious way. Take a look at my profile and see how closely my scores and reviews for games like Skyward Sword and The Last of Us compare to McShea's. The thoughtlessness and ravenous, personal attacks on someone over a review score are not just immature and ignorant, it's evil and shameful.
In the comments, I think that both those who are vehemently trying to defend Tom and those who are attacking him are making the same mistake: they are either attempting to defend the original Ducktales or say that the original now stinks. But, this is not the original Ducktales in the review; this is Ducktales Remastered, and it has tampered with the original in many ways. Don't worry, you don't have to try and defend the old Ducktales NES game. Tom likes it (read his most recent nostalgia article). This review criticizes unnecessary implementations and a failure to touch upon and improve on the original in any meaningful way that would make it an exemplary or at least enjoyable platformer in today's market.
The_Deepblue's comments