DragonmasterDan

I got my list from here: http://www.nintendo.com/wii/virtualconsole/games Can anyone point me to an up-to-date list? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Virtu...a)#Sega_Genesis Though I hate wikipedia for reliability it seems like a solid list.

Landstalker is on virtual console so is Shining Force 1. I think your list of VC games is out of date. Flashback, Out of this World and Zombies Ate my Neighbors, Earthworm Jim 1 and 2 are also on SNES, (some like out of this world and Flashback are on multiple other systems)

That's pretty typical. DS's are gradually getting harder to find as the days draw closer and closer to Christmas.

I think the ten point scale is completely flawed as well, mainly because it isn't a scale of 1-10 it's a scale of 5-10, VERY VERY VERY rarely will you ever see a game fall below a five, the reason being if a publisher gets that upset about a negative review the reviewer or his publication could always claim that a 5 means average when actually it means poor in most cases. With the Kane and Lynch situation it's obviously become apparent that long ago most publishers became hip to the 5-10 scale and the infamous 6 out of ten that title recieved was seen as a flogging of mass proportion when the scale technically should mean the game is above average. It's a huge flaw with the industry. I don't necessarily have a problem with a game getting 10 out of 10 if in the reviewers mind the spectacular strengths of the title make up for the games flaws. There are games I feel are fully worthy of a perfect score, not because they are technically perfect but because they are so highly exceptional they are as close to it as can be reached via the medium. Also everyone is disappointed with some game, since you brought up Halo 3 I personally am not a fan of playing first person shooters with a controller. As a result I know that my enjoyment of the game would be much lower than most people who bought and played it simply because I strongly prefer to have some sort of pointing device like a mouse to aim in a game that requires accurate shots in fast action rather than using analog sticks to serve that purpose. There is a variation in tastes between everyone.

Since it's late my time and I don't feel like writing any sort of extensive mini review the basics of the game are as follows. The game has great cel shaded animation for characters, familiar environments to anyone who has played the earlier Dragon's Lair arcade games and a decent sized quest for an adventure game. The games protagonist Dirk the Daring moves and handles awkwardly, he slides too frequently on jumps and control over how and where he attacks is limited leading to frustration with missed hits of enemies. While the level design has a great deal of aesthetic appeal due to nice looking environments many of which are modeled after scenes from the arcade classic, there are many platforming elements which go beyond just difficult to frustrating due to the games sloppy control scheme, in many areas jumps need to be very precise in order to land without falling off of your target. In addition to the aforementioned problem with hitting enemies, being able to see where enemies are coming from can be problematic due to camera problems, the games angle does at times (particular in boss battles) switch beyond the players control and often times you can't see where an enemy is coming from. It's particularly noticeable with flying enemies (say for example bats) who can attack you nearly undetected depending on the camera angle). This game also has a few "It's not a bug, it's a feature" elements that are sure to turn a lot of gamers off. In keeping with the tradition of the original Dragon's Lair a number of obstacles stand in Dirk's way which kill him instantly, certain types of enemy attacks or other hazards can kill Dirk in a single hit regardless of his life bar (yes, there is a life bar). This is designed intentionally as an homage to ways Dirk would die in the original Dragon's Lair but is lost on most players of the game as a frustrating way to die instantly when you have a full life bar. With an extra 6 months to a year in development time of merely cleaning up the game engine, camera problems and refining the controls Dragon's Lair 3D could have been a fantastic game, but in its current state it is a title that should really only be recommended to die hard fans of the original arcade game. Based on what I've said (though not as detailed or as lengthy as any sort of published review would normally be) hopefully you can draw your own conclusions as to whether or not you're enthusiastic about the title. I owe you one. That was longer than many of the published reviews I read...I wasn't expecting any of my questions to actually be answered in depth, this late at night. Now I know I want the game. Thanks. Are you here anonymously? I'd like to read more of your work; but won't press the issue given the nature of this site... No, this is a screen name I mostly use for online boards and stuff. I previously worked for a publication called Silicon Magazine which was a print magazine that was given out to independent game stores, it was typically 32-48 pages per issue paid for by ads. A lot of stores would line their bags with it (meaning you got it with any purchase). As the smaller game stores started to die out (used stores, import stores) the circulation dropped and the magazine faltered. I've worked for a number of online publications over the years though many of them are since defunct. Some of my reviews can still be found that were written for GamesAreFun.com

Since it's late my time and I don't feel like writing any sort of extensive mini review the basics of the game are as follows. The game has great cel shaded animation for characters, familiar environments to anyone who has played the earlier Dragon's Lair arcade games and a decent sized quest for an adventure game. The games protagonist Dirk the Daring moves and handles awkwardly, he slides too frequently on jumps and control over how and where he attacks is limited leading to frustration with missed hits of enemies. While the level design has a great deal of aesthetic appeal due to nice looking environments many of which are modeled after scenes from the arcade classic, there are many platforming elements which go beyond just difficult to frustrating due to the games sloppy control scheme, in many areas jumps need to be very precise in order to land without falling off of your target. In addition to the aforementioned problem with hitting enemies, being able to see where enemies are coming from can be problematic due to camera problems, the games angle does at times (particular in boss battles) switch beyond the players control and often times you can't see where an enemy is coming from. It's particularly noticeable with flying enemies (say for example bats) who can attack you nearly undetected depending on the camera angle). This game also has a few "It's not a bug, it's a feature" elements that are sure to turn a lot of gamers off. In keeping with the tradition of the original Dragon's Lair a number of obstacles stand in Dirk's way which kill him instantly, certain types of enemy attacks or other hazards can kill Dirk in a single hit regardless of his life bar (yes, there is a life bar). This is designed intentionally as an homage to ways Dirk would die in the original Dragon's Lair but is lost on most players of the game as a frustrating way to die instantly when you have a full life bar. With an extra 6 months to a year in development time of merely cleaning up the game engine, camera problems and refining the controls Dragon's Lair 3D could have been a fantastic game, but in its current state it is a title that should really only be recommended to die hard fans of the original arcade game. Based on what I've said (though not as detailed or as lengthy as any sort of published review would normally be) hopefully you can draw your own conclusions as to whether or not you're enthusiastic about the title.

Well, I basically agree with that assessment. I think it is worth noting that to make a substantial difference in the quality of graphics would have far more than doubled the price at which point the platform wouldn't have been a consumer viable product. Where the N64 was in terms of 3D rendering capabilities at its release in 1996 wasn't that far behind much much much higher priced PCs. The only step up that would have made a measurable difference would have been to SGI type hardware which would have made the price astronomical. The technology did technically exist to make a noticeable difference, but my comments earlier with regard to its specifications not being the bare minimum for 3D due to price were but rather due to the technology were made with regard to technology that was available at a consumer market viable cost. To make a system with significantly better 3D performance would have minimally quadrupled the price since as I mentioned earlier the technology to make a significant difference in 3D rendering wasn't even being shipped with PCs at the time Added in edit: Also with regard to placement in the comparative timeline. There were 3D 16-bit games. The AH3 Thunderstrike, Virtual Racing, Star Fox, among other titles that appeared on 16-bit systems to me represent the Fairchilds of 3D gaming. The Jaguar and 3DO being perhaps the 2600s and the Saturn and Playstation being the Intellivisions and the N64 being around the 5200 or Colecovision. Again it's all a matter of perception

Yeah, but you wind up with inflated scores (or too low of scores) based on what types of fans are in higher numbers at the media outlet allowing the fan reviews. This is why GameFaqs polls and such usually wind up with Final Fantasy (or related characters) winning. Because their fans are in higher numbers at that particular outlet than anywhere else. As far as the concept of a fan review having a "new" experience as being an advantage, it's also a disadvantage in adequately ranking the value of a game. For example, I might play Rayman having not played any platformers in years and think it's great, But without the experience of having played Mario, Ratchet and Clank and other 3D platformers it's hard to judge how good this game is of a value for the money since I have nothing to compare it to. As a professional reviewer it's my job to be informed enough about games to say this game ranked 9.0 is a better worth your time (and money if the price is equal) than this game ranked 7.5 and another game ranked 7.0 so that readers of my review can know what game is likely to be the best purchase. Obviously everyone has individual tastes and they differ from person to person, but games usually fall around a certain range for most experienced professional reviewers which is why sites like GameRankings are so important in creating averages. Yes, there's bad professional reviewers out there, GamePro is certainly not well regarded for the integrity of their editorial content since you used them as an example, but an average of review scores from professional reviewers generally yields for more accurate results of the quality of a game (to most people) than does fan reviews based on experience. Added in edit: Here's a few other thoughts. First off there are also games that as a reviewer I might enjoy but realize are fundamentally flawed products. A great example of this for me personally is Dragon's Lair 3D it's a game I can't recommend. But I'm a big fan of the original arcade game (as well as of Don Bluth's animation) and I personally found a great deal of enjoyment in the fan service provided in the game. The actual game itself is incredibly frustrating, poorly paced and has terrible camera and control problems. But I enjoyed it, it's a game that I couldn't actually give a fair review to since I'm well aware 99% of the population wouldn't have found the redeeming qualities I found in the game to at all make up for its rather substantial deficiencies. Also, I am a big fan of calling out reviewers on doing a poor job. Years ago IGN had a review of Tactics Ogre on PSone which for all intents and purposes claimed the title was a Final Fantasy Tactics knockoff. The author of the review failed to realize Tactics Ogre was a much older game than Final Fantasy Tactics and though the title was released in North America after Square's game hit the market, Tactics Ogre is actually what Final Fantasy Tactics was based on, and not the other way around. IGN shortly thereafter pulled the Tactics Ogre review. The Virtual Fighter 3 situation sounds to me like a reviewer who didn't take the time to learn the intricacies of the game. In some circumstances this can be difficult and in the past has been acommon problem for reviewers who have a large plate of games to review and a fast approaching editorial deadline. However it's also no excuse for doing a poor job.

Well my point is it being owned by a retail chain isn't what has led to its unreliability but rather just poor writing and being over focused on a particular demographic. Some years ago you are correct, Game Informer went under a makeover. Prior to the makeover GameInformer had a very strong emphasis on game reviews. When Funcoland was purchased by GameStop the magazine changed to better cater to the newly formed Gamestop's demographics. Meaning rather than being aimed at Funcoland customers (a generally younger more casual gaming crowd) the magazine took the direction of being aimed at what is now considered to be the "hardcore gaming" crowd (a heavy emphasis on first or third person shooters, an older target audence and a general more mature theme). As far as the Paper Mario story goes, this is the first I'd heard of it though admittedly I generally don't keep up with their controversies since I was never an avid fan of the publication to begin with, but it doesn't surprise me to read that they were intentionally underscoring a title like Paper Mario, in order to "better serve" their target demographic they apparently are using the rather unprofessional tactic of catering to your audience by showing hostility towards products that don't cater under your proffered demographics tastes.

Well, just a note the N64 wasn't necessarily at or around the bare minimum due to price but rather due to technology restraints. While the system was cartridge based in order to come in at a reasonable price this didn't actually directly effect its ability to produce quality graphics. The problem had more to do with the fact that real time 3D technology was just past its infancy and reaching toddler stages. yes, the N64 could have used more RAM (and this was eventually addressed with the RAM expansion later in the systems life) but that wasn't the reason for the relative ugliness. Also if we're comparing the N64's position in 3D to older systems in 2D, I think maybe the 5200 or Colecovision would be a more fair comparison. The reason being there were a number of systems with large 3D libraries (and hardware in the console designed for 3D) as I stated before being the Jaguar, 3DO, Saturn and Playstation that came prior to it (and had inferior hardware). Like Sprite mentioned if you compare 2D to 2D from SNES to N64 or 3D to 3D there's a HUGE difference with 3D. Watch StarFox for SNES and then compare it to StarFox 64. With 2D the SNES was pretty far along so while the N64 was a lot better (more colors, more sprites, higher video output resolution, more RAM) it's not as noticeable because the differences are far more minor with what can be done with a 2D title.

The problem with using an overall percentage of fan reviews to gauge a games quality is that it fails to take into account that a lot of fans who vote or review typically have far less experience than professional (or high level amateur working on large websites) game reviewers. It also leads to games with more militant fan bases garnering higher scorers with the instant 10s being more excessive.

Super Mario RPG like Donkey Kong Country for SNES features prerendered graphics. The polygonal character models aren't being rendered by the SNES, but rather they are digitized and then animated back frame by frame on the system. There are 3D rendered SNES games but most use some sort of accelerator chip like Star Fox for example.

Game Informer was always owned by a retail chain, it was originally started by Funcoland who when purchased by Barnes and Noble combined with Babbages and Software Etc to form Gamestop. It's something that happens but is a lot less common than it used to be, sometimes it's just due to assignments. If it's the busy season of the year for reviews at a large publication some games do get reviewed by people who aren't as optimistic about the style of game. In even older eras a group of several reviews handled all the reviews meaning they played every game, and usually not completing them before writing their reviews. A famous example of this at a big publication was EGMs Sushi X character who when written by Ken Williams hated GameBoy games for one reason or another. EGM only had four or five people writing reviews at a time and as a result you'd frequently see low scores given to games that were in genres (or on platforms) that the reviewer in question didn't like. That happened a lot, in the earlier generations of gaming RPGs in particular were frequent victims of being underrated since they required a lot of playing time. As a result they were frequently not played through to completion before being reviewed.

I used to work for a game magazine back in the heyday of print publications as well as for a number of online media outlets. I've run into problems with publishers before. There is definitely a need for any large media outlet be it a print magazine, large website or a decent sized fan site to keep potential advertisers and supporters of your organization happy. Here is a story I posted recently on another web forum about just such an incident. In previous working experience in the gaming industry I've tried to avoid giving bad reviews by simply choosing not to review the game. In one particularly memorable instance a certain publishers PR firm had been hyping their clients work for months on end and appeared quite convinced their multiplatform action adventure title which had a deal for movie rights in place prior to ever releasing a game in the series (and yes the game came first) was going to be a mega selling monster hit. I had dealt with this particular PR agent directly and upon receiving copies of the game for multiple platforms shortly prior to the games release I realized there was no way I could review this, the game was quite frankly bad (which on the video game scale would put it at a 5 or 6 out 10) and my review would certainly damage my relationship with the PR firm (who handled PR for several other publishers in addition to the one I just mentioned). So I sent it off to another reviewer, they had the same impression. After several weeks of post no review for any of the versions of the title the PR agent contacted me and asked why, in one of the most difficult responses I ever had to give I tried to kindly explain that if they REALLY wanted a review I could post it, but it wouldn't be pleasant. In writing this post I looked up the average review score of the game I'm referring to in question via gamerankings, it's in the high 60s, meaning.. it's bad.

the SNES was several generations into 2D. 2D games were well developed by that time and technology allowed for great things to be done for it. The N64 was one of the earlier systems where 3D was an emphasis (obviously later than the Jaguar, 3DO which was more FMV heavy, PSone and Saturn) and as a result its early gen 3D games don't hold up as well aesthetically as do the well polished SNES 2D titles. Added in quick edit: I should specify I don't mean fully 3D starting with that era but rather just polygonal. In re-reading it I thought I should be more specific.

I rent a storage space with tons of my stuff in it, it's around 70.00 a month (on a year contract).

Really, I've never seen SMS carts at GameCrazy.

I thought the reason it wasn't included was due to licensing rights with Yuzo Koshiro the composer who retains the rights to his compensations and as a result would have been owed a royalty on all copies sold in the US. A lot of the later Genesis games were cardboard box only though

Sonic 1 SMS did come out in the US, it was the last US released Master System game!

Why my list sucks: No Space Invaders (why wouldn't we want to shoot things that can fire back for a change?), no Guitar Heroes, (another game I hate, but it did what it did better than anyone else.), and I haven't ever played a real time strategy game. Who's next? I have difficulty making lists like that because of the fact that I have a tendency to make one list of games that were most influential and another of games that are my personal favorites. Some important games that should be on any list of influential games that are left off are Dragon Quest/ Dragon Warrior which is for all intents and purposes the start of all Japanese style RPGs. Doom which popularized (but not invented) first person shooters. Pokemon which started a giant craze of immense proportions. If I had time to think about it I'm sure there's others.

I think the main reason the Wii is running away is due to the fact that it's something new. The emphasis is on games with new types of control schemes and though most games are awful at implementing it, the few that do it well have made all the difference in the world for the platform. I guess the other reason is that it has a diverse lineup, the Xbox 360 has a lineup of mostly first person shooters and games that are available on other consoles. It's exclusive lineup of titles strictly caters to a very specific market. Nintendo is successfully aiming their platform at new audiences for gaming. They're aiming at older people, women etc. Microsoft and Sony are both still aiming at 16-34 year old men. While I think the 360s reliability (or lack thereof) has definitely negatively effected it overall, the overall problem is that it's reaching for the traditional gaming market (and competing with Sony for it) while Nintendo is aiming their product to as wide of an audience as possible. price is the number 1 factor holding back the 360 and PS3. once one can get under 200 dollars, then sales will pick up dramatically... though that much of a drop may never happen It will happen eventually, but it will be the hard-drive less Xbox 360 and the PS3 may not get there for years if at all. And you're right it's a big factor in holding those platforms back from mass market adoption, but the Wii is succeeding not necessarily because of its lower price (it's what 30.00 less than the Arcade model of the 360) but due to Nintendo's success at aiming it at a wider audience.

Yeah, I see random games going over retail price new on ebay strictly because the buyer most likely lives in a rural area and the game in question is difficult to locate besides online.

Yep, the RPGs on the PSone make it a very collectible platform. Since the PSone had such a huge and diverse lineup of games there's going to be a lot of odd titles released throughout its lifespan that will become sought after over time. The Genesis doesn't really have a great lineup of RPGs in cartridge format (with just a handful line the PS games, the Shining games and a few individual games like Warsong and Landstalker) and while there's some neat unique platformers and SHMUPs it's highly likely those will find their way to virtual console or various collections eventually if they haven't already.

I heard there were some issues with rights considering all the big names involved with its production and that there were even (eventually settled) lawsuits regarding the Playstation re-release. There's a lot of parties that would need to approve a re-issue of it onto GBA which is why it never happened. Maybe someday we'll see it on Virtual Console.

I think the main reason the Wii is running away is due to the fact that it's something new. The emphasis is on games with new types of control schemes and though most games are awful at implementing it, the few that do it well have made all the difference in the world for the platform. I guess the other reason is that it has a diverse lineup, the Xbox 360 has a lineup of mostly first person shooters and games that are available on other consoles. It's exclusive lineup of titles strictly caters to a very specific market. Nintendo is successfully aiming their platform at new audiences for gaming. They're aiming at older people, women etc. Microsoft and Sony are both still aiming at 16-34 year old men. While I think the 360s reliability (or lack thereof) has definitely negatively effected it overall, the overall problem is that it's reaching for the traditional gaming market (and competing with Sony for it) while Nintendo is aiming their product to as wide of an audience as possible.