Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Room 34

What's up with GameSpot's reviews of the old emulated games?

Recommended Posts

Have a look here...

 

It seems to me like GameSpot is reviewing old NES games by the standard of modern consoles. We KNOW these games don't have realistic graphics or the depth that the better modern games have. If you're going to judge 20-year-old games by those standards, why bother reviewing them at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does read like they expect a lot more from 20 year old games than can be reasonably expected.

 

I hate game reviews in general. Most of the time they just make me want to punch the author even when I agree with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a look here...

 

It seems to me like GameSpot is reviewing old NES games by the standard of modern consoles. We KNOW these games don't have realistic graphics or the depth that the better modern games have. If you're going to judge 20-year-old games by those standards, why bother reviewing them at all?

 

 

They're retarded that's all. As if Legend of Zelda is a 7.2. Go find me a game that is better designed than Zelda, I dare you.

If Mario 64 was a 9. whatever when it came out, it should be the same now. Anything less is unnacceptable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL... Funny how "the greatest game ever!" now only gets an 8.0! (I'm talking about Mario 64 of course.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some games age better than others. If you don't want to see how an old game fares against newer ones then don't read the review. Besides, it's just someone's OPINION. If you spent less time finding things to complain about you'd have more time to play games and maybe review them yourself. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate game reviews in general. Most of the time they just make me want to punch the author even when I agree with them.

 

GameSpot's reviews are some of the worst, and ironically it's because they're trying really hard to be the exact opposite of IGN, which is also among the worst but to the other extreme.

 

When I worked in the game industry, we practically had a drinking game made out of how many times we could find the words "quite good" in any GameSpot review. All of their reviews are totally wishy-washy; they use really weak words and phrases even for the highest praise and the worst criticisms. They also seem to consciously try to balance criticism and praise; if a game sucks, they'll try to find its good points and vice versa. It makes all of their reviews read pretty much the same, and almost completely robotic. Their goal seems to be to remove as much subjectivity as possible from what is by nature a subjective profession. So in the end, you're left with nothing of substance whatsoever. I rarely have any idea after reading a GameSpot review of whether I'm going to like a game or not.

 

They seem to think this makes them sound more "professional", but the most highly respected critics in other forms of media do not write reviews like this. You'd never see Pauline Kael pulling punches like Jeff Gerstman does, for example. So they're pretty misguided in their editorial style, I think.

 

What we need is for Old Man Murray to come back. Now those were some good reviews!

 

(I used to like Penny Arcade's reviews too, but they've become really bandwagonesque over the past few years.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What we need is for Old Man Murray to come back. Now those were some good reviews!

 

 

 

OMM was great and really funny most of the time. I miss that and Fatbabies inside stuff about the games industry too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The games that hit x box live arcade get the same terrible reviews. But these guys aren't looking through rose colored glasses at the games, so actually a lot of them are pretty dead on. At least when you hold them up to todays standards, which I don't see why you wouldn't. Since you aren't giving them a grade on how fun the were but how they play now. Back in 96 when resident evil was released it got increadibly high scores. Would the same game get above a 3 or 4 now? I highly doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

places shouldn't even bother reviewing these older emulated games. 99% of the time a review already exsists for the original, why isn't that enough?

 

Do they expect straight ports like Contra and Zelda to magically play better and have enhanced graphics just because they're on next gen hardware?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least when you hold them up to todays standards, which I don't see why you wouldn't.

 

Intelligent reviewers don't do this with movies or books, so doing it here is stupid too.

Is the original King Kong now a 1 star movie since it's black and white and has effects that don't even begin to stand up to modern movies? What about Shakespeare? No one says "thou" any more, so the language is so outdated it just can't compare to today's writings.

Judging old art by new standards shows intolerable ignorance and a complete lack of appreciation for the art form you're supposed to love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least when you hold them up to todays standards, which I don't see why you wouldn't.

 

Intelligent reviewers don't do this with movies or books, so doing it here is stupid too.

Is the original King Kong now a 1 star movie since it's black and white and has effects that don't even begin to stand up to modern movies? What about Shakespeare? No one says "thou" any more, so the language is so outdated it just can't compare to today's writings.

Judging old art by new standards shows intolerable ignorance and a complete lack of appreciation for the art form you're supposed to love.

Movies and books are not interchangeable with games. The day the earth stood still is still a fantastic movie even by todays standards. And Asimovs, clarkes or cards work is far better than a lot of modern sci-fi writters. That's why it doesn't work games are not timeless like literature. Of course you have your exceptions like pac man or galaga. But those aren't the norm, I honestly think reviewing these old games at all is pretty stupid. But I agree with the way they are doing it even if they under rate games I personally love, but literature =/=games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate game reviews in general. Most of the time they just make me want to punch the author even when I agree with them.

 

GameSpot's reviews are some of the worst, and ironically it's because they're trying really hard to be the exact opposite of IGN, which is also among the worst but to the other extreme.

 

 

 

My favorite Gamespot review was Soul Calibur III, in which they said IN THE FIRST LINE that Soul Calibur II was "lacking something" and fell short of expectations, or something link that.

 

They had given SCII 5.0, 5.0, and 4.5s the year prior (out of 5).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The games that hit x box live arcade get the same terrible reviews. But these guys aren't looking through rose colored glasses at the games, so actually a lot of them are pretty dead on. At least when you hold them up to todays standards, which I don't see why you wouldn't. Since you aren't giving them a grade on how fun the were but how they play now. Back in 96 when resident evil was released it got increadibly high scores. Would the same game get above a 3 or 4 now? I highly doubt it.

 

 

Why wouldn't it? Was the game not fun back then? Sure, I can see something superficial like graphics and load times bringing a game's review scores down if judged by today's standards, but if the game is really good, it will stand the test of time. If it's repetitive or has limited replay value, that should have been reflected in the original review as well.

 

I really want to know what makes a game that was awesome in 1980 LESS AWESOME in 2006, other than graphics, sound, and load time, which I think are all superficial to the game itself. If a game has great graphics but terrible game play, it's a bad game. If a game has terrible graphics but plays great, it's a great game.

 

So, I will repeat myself: what makes a game that was awesome in 1980 less awesome in 2006?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The games that hit x box live arcade get the same terrible reviews. But these guys aren't looking through rose colored glasses at the games, so actually a lot of them are pretty dead on. At least when you hold them up to todays standards, which I don't see why you wouldn't. Since you aren't giving them a grade on how fun the were but how they play now. Back in 96 when resident evil was released it got increadibly high scores. Would the same game get above a 3 or 4 now? I highly doubt it.

 

 

Why wouldn't it? Was the game not fun back then? Sure, I can see something superficial like graphics and load times bringing a game's review scores down if judged by today's standards, but if the game is really good, it will stand the test of time. If it's repetitive or has limited replay value, that should have been reflected in the original review as well.

 

I really want to know what makes a game that was awesome in 1980 LESS AWESOME in 2006, other than graphics, sound, and load time, which I think are all superficial to the game itself. If a game has great graphics but terrible game play, it's a bad game. If a game has terrible graphics but plays great, it's a great game.

 

So, I will repeat myself: what makes a game that was awesome in 1980 less awesome in 2006?

Nothing at all if the game is really classic, what I was getting at is most of those games never deserved the reviews they got in the first place and are being fairly judged now. BUT many will view games such as defender or space invaders as limited, which they are. So that could also be a reason for bringing down a score, or the whole concept may just be tired in this day and age. Both of those things could go a long way to bring down once high grades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most games today are "rental" fare with little replay value. You consume the sights and sounds of the game and then dispose of it. That was rarely the case in the days of the classics. The classics are more analogous to sports games or board games. Chess isn't any worse today than it was in the middle-ages. Baseball isn't any worse now than it was 100 years ago. I think once you start getting into the NES era that you get into the early spectator type games which have less replay value than something more randomized like Ms. Pac-man. I wouldn't expect those to age as gracefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gamespot is the least reliable site out there. They only like Halo and Gears of War.

That's just unfair, they give good reviews to every type of game. That isn't to say you should agree with them, but they just do not love war games.

Most games today are "rental" fare with little replay value

Very subjective, and I doubt many people out side of a classic game board would agree with you. Most games made today have game play that's just as solid as ever. But of course some of it is going to age badly as we progress, all eras do. I honestly think games are better now than they have ever been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Movies and books are not interchangeable with games.

 

In terms of criticisms and critiques, they pretty much are, and figgler made a good point.

 

The day the earth stood still is still a fantastic movie even by todays standards.

 

One or two examples of how good movies are always good movies doesn't really help prove your argument that good games aren't always good games.

 

A game that was fun 20 years ago does not suddenly stop being fun. Our standards of fun have not really changed, which is what most modern reviewers of games would have you believe. They're ignoring the fact that people have been playing games for thousands of years. Is Chess less fun today than when it was invented? Go? Badminton? Ping Pong? It's probably pretty likely that what's "fun" to us is even mostly genetic - humans obviously have a built-in need for recreation and leisure and I'm sure there's a part of our brain that responds the same way today to various leisure stimuli as it did when we first evolved from cavemen.

 

What I will agree on is that some video games were never as good as they're reputed to be, or as the scores they originally got. But that says more about the state of video game "journalism" than anything else, as does the fact that rather than modern reviewers admitting this fact (because this would make them look bad), they instead claim to be reviewing games as they appeal to "modern standards". There is no such thing. There are only good reviews and bad reviews, and most (though not all) game reviews are bad, because most so-called video game "journalists" are bad journalists.

 

I guarantee that in 25 years you're going to see games like Gears of War and Halo on "classic" download services and you're going to have sites like GameSpot re-reviewing them and giving them a 6 out of 10, claiming they don't hold up well to "modern standards" when the truth is just that they are overrated now, not that they decline in quality over time. As time goes on, the bandwagon disappears, and trends change, so you're better able to see and experience the true nature of things. But a good critic would see through all that to begin with, and that's part of what critics in other forms of media are trained to do.

 

(Disclaimer: I have a degree in cinema studies and I was a professional game critic for a while.)

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A game that was fun 20 years ago does not suddenly stop being fun. Our standards of fun have not really changed, which is what most modern reviewers of games would have you believe. They're ignoring the fact that people have been playing games for thousands of years. Is Chess less fun today than when it was invented? Go? Badminton? Ping Pong? It's probably pretty likely that what's "fun" to us is even mostly genetic - humans obviously have a built-in need for recreation and leisure and I'm sure there's a part of our brain that responds the same way today to various leisure stimuli as it did when we first evolved from cavemen.

 

I don't think it is a matter of a game ceasing to be fun after a certain amount of time. It is more of a matter of now familiar elements initially being used in less refined ways that have now come to seem quaint. People playing Space Invaders now wonder where the powerups are; what happens in the next stage; how do we get to the end and win?

 

"Oh, you mean you just shoot at them until your invevitable defeat? What fun is that?"

 

I would imagine that there are formulas in the movie industry that are recognized as cliches and others that are recognized as tried and true and still work with certain refinements. I think the same applies in videogames. Some formulas still work while others seem played out. Try as one might to go back and enjoy those formulas objectively, for *most* people there's a feeling of "been there enough, done that enough, want something different."

 

Of course, many of us here aren't *most* people so of course we're going to disagree more often than most with what the mainstream gaming press has to say about older games. However, what they say is going to apply and be useful for most people. Sad but true.

 

If you have some time to kill, read my blog for reviews of all the hottest games that came out for home systems in the 70s. Classics Old games like W.I.N.! Blackjack! Fun with Numbers! Nim! A whirlygig of fun, sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're ignoring the fact that people have been playing games for thousands of years. Is Chess less fun today than when it was invented? Go? Badminton? Ping Pong?

You can't compare sports and board games with video games, football is football it may change slightly but the the idea will always be there. Video games are changing constantly, a game of chess never changes. When games stop evolving you can start comparing them to sports and board games.

A game that was fun 20 years ago does not suddenly stop being fun

But that simply isn't true, take kaboom. Would any modern gamer that grew up with halo or gears of war play it for more than 20 minutes and not laugh? Unless you grew up in the era the games just aren't fun, they are too simplistic and limited to be anything more than a momentary diversion.

I guarantee that in 25 years you're going to see games like Gears of War and Halo on "classic" download services and you're going to have sites like GameSpot re-reviewing them and giving them a 6 out of 10, claiming they don't hold up well to "modern standards" when the truth is just that they are overrated now, not that they decline in quality over time.

Yes in 25 years they will most likely get panned. But that is because games will keep evolving, and then they too will seem limited and quaint. That doesn't mean they aren't great games now, just like kaboom was great when it was released. Standards change, and while game play will always be the focul point HOW it plays will always change.

and trends change

Right, trends do change and so does what people want out of games. While they will always want a fun game how it is fun will continue to evolve as the old ways become dull and stagnant.

Edited by sega saturn x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree with IGN's and Gamespot's review of Donkey Kong however.

 

I mean what is up with Nintendo constantly pushing the crap NES version on every single platform. You'd think they'd get a clue and give us the true Donkey Kong... after all it's really the game that put them on the map! Give us the real game officially already :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, it's like they score backwards to how I would. I'd give the classic games they review 8s, 9s, and 10s, and the shitty new junk 6s or 5s.

 

I think it's perfectly fair to use today's standards to judge old games (as long as graphics abilities aren't brought into it). Odd how it turned out when they did it though, as I'd think that would make the VC and Live Arcade games look much better than judging them against other games of their time. PacMan versus GTA:SA would seem to make PacMan look better to me. Zelda vs.Breast Physics Engine 8 would seem to improve, and not hurt, Zelda. I don't know, maybe it's just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the blind hate of new games on this site.

Yeah, that's so obvious from the amount of topics discussing the new systems.

 

This is the reason I have a problem with this scoring:

Galaga: Xbox Live Arcade: 6.9

Need For Speed Carbon: 7.6

 

Thus, they are saying that the latest Need for Speed game is substantially better than Galaga. Do you seriously think people will be talking about how great Carbon was 25 years from now? They are with Galaga.

Edited by Atarifever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, that's so obvious from the amount of topics discussing the new systems

 

Most games today are "rental" fare with little replay value.

 

You will find tons of posts like this all over the site, regardless of how many topics discussing new games there are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...