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

[Atarifever]

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.

I don't see blind hate there. He's right.

[Gabriel]

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.

 

There's lots of marginal games from more recent eras which people still rave on and on about. I don't have any doubt that 20 years from now there will be people praising Need for Speed just as much as any other franchise title which is released nowadays.

 

I read that Donkey Kong review, and all I can say is "Preach it brother!"

[Lord Helmet]

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.

 

The problem with this quote is that its almost 100% correct. Most of the new games have little replay value once you have beaten them once or twice. That simply wasn't the case 20 years ago. It doesn't mean that games today are any better or worse than they were back then...they are just different.

 

It's all about context. Galaga is a GREAT game for what it is...a classic shooter. Need for Speed Carbon is a really GOOD game and has been rated as such. The problem with these publications reviewing these games is they view them with a modern gam bias. You can't do that with most classics. The entire emphasis of the games was different back then.

 

The current era has plenty of good games...and it also has stinkers...same old story...different console generation.

Edited December 4, 2006 by Lord Helmet

[Atarifever]

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

 

 

 

There's lots of marginal games from more recent eras which people still rave on and on about. I don't have any doubt that 20 years from now there will be people praising Need for Speed just as much as any other franchise title which is released nowadays.

 

I have my doubts you could find 10 people who still remember that particular Need for Speed 20 years from now. One of the early Playstation ones (or 3D0, whatever) sure, but one this far in? Come on. I'm talking about comparing it to Galaga, not Gaplus here. You'd have a hard time finding any gamer who hasn't heard of Galaga; I'm positive I know people who play games who don't care about, or know about, the latest Need for Speed right now. This minute. While it's out in stores.

Edited December 4, 2006 by Atarifever

[Flojomojo]

A good game is a good game is a good game. Just like there are good new and old books, good new and old films, good new and old songs, it doesn't really matter if something is old or new, the same rule applies: 90% of everything is crap. We remember the good old stuff and dispose of the bad. Some "cult" and "so bad its good" stuff stays around for comic effect or fringe interest.

 

There were plenty of awful "rental only" games on the NES, SNES, Genesis, and so on. It's always been like that.

 

The industry has certainly changed, as has where games are played:

 

Galaga was in arcades, pizza joints, laundromats, and convenience stores. You could play as long as you could survive for 25c or watch someone else for free. It's still around in some places (I've seen it in airports and interstate highway rest stops) as Namco Class of 1982, bundled with Ms. Pac-Man, where it now costs 50c to play.

 

Need for Speed Carbon requires you to buy a console (some of which cost upwards of $200, others of which are difficult to find since they just came out). You need to buy the game disc for $50, and you have to sit at home, by yourself, to play it.

 

50 cents in a public place versus $200+ at home pretty much defines the difference between casual and hardcore. Most people's grandmothers have seen Galaga at one time or another, and it's had world-wide exposure. I have yet to see Need for Speed Carbon in action, and I consider myself an "enthusiast" of the hobby.

 

The decimal scores in these reviews are stupid. 7.2 for Legend of Zelda, 8 for Super Mario 64, and 4.6 for NES Donkey Kong are needlessly precise. How about 4 stars for Zelda, 4 stars for SM64, and 2 stars for DK -- or better yet, no scores at all, just a text review. These games *do* be judged in context -- if you're going to run around Zelda's overworld without a clue for hours, you're not going to have a good time and you deserve to know this up front. I agree that it was never really a 10/10 game, but it was definitely the best of the breed for a long time.

[Atarifever]

 

Galaga was in arcades, pizza joints, laundromats, and convenience stores. You could play as long as you could survive for 25c or watch someone else for free. It's still around in some places (I've seen it in airports and interstate highway rest stops) as Namco Class of 1982, bundled with Ms. Pac-Man, where it now costs 50c to play.

 

Need for Speed Carbon requires you to buy a console (some of which cost upwards of $200, others of which are difficult to find since they just came out). You need to buy the game disc for $50, and you have to sit at home, by yourself, to play it.

 

50 cents in a public place versus $200+ at home pretty much defines the difference between casual and hardcore. Most people's grandmothers have seen Galaga at one time or another, and it's had world-wide exposure. I have yet to see Need for Speed Carbon in action, and I consider myself an "enthusiast" of the hobby.

 

True, but then, how many people played arcade games compared to today's industry that rivals Hollywood. The way movies are handled changed too, Sure, there was less competition for Gone with the Wind, but then, there was a much larger ad campaign for "Lord of the Rings". Just because Carbon isn't everywhere doesn't mean it has less chance of being remembered. There are well over 100 million console owners, there are millions of computer owners, there are ad campaigns trying to sell to a receptive market. Carbon technically has as much a chance of beng considered great forever as Galaga did. The only problem is that it is, likely, very good, while Galaga is insanely awesome.

 

Regarding your good game is a good game is a good game comment, I couldn't agree more.

 

 

I seriously don't get arguements that these games aren't still AAA today though. I have spent about 20-30 minutes a night at Galaga every night for the last few weeks. I have also played a ton of Galaxian and Super Cobra lately. Now, I have all these new games to choose from, but I still have fun at the old games. If they don't compete on the same level as the new games, how am I still deriving so much fun out of them? Please don't anyone say nostalgia, because, for reference, me and Galaga were both born in 1981, which means I didn't see a lot of it for quite awhile, and had lots of more modern games I could play by the time I got it for the NES.

 

Does anyone remember saying back when they were a kid "boy these games sure do suck a lot. Man do I ever wish 2006 would hurry up and happen already." If they were great then, why does anything today make them bad? Everyone wets themselves today over Halo, does anyone ever stop and think, "man, I can't wait for 2016 so I can stop playng this limited junk"? Of course you don't. Because games will be bigger in 2016, does that mean Halo isn't great? Then why will it make Halo bad in the future? Is it less fun because something else will exist? That's crazy.

Edited December 4, 2006 by Atarifever

[Xot]

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.

 

 

False, and here is the evidence: CHILDREN. My kids have grown up playing pretty much every system from the 2600 to the Wii. Right now, if you ask them what their favorite game would be, it would probably be something like Wii Sports, Fuzion Frenzy, Pokemon, Wario Ware... and Kaboom. Seriously. My kids were exposed pretty much simultaneously to every era of video gaming, and they are not the only ones. One of my favorite gifts to give are the Jakks plug & play games. While to us, the emulation isn't all that great, to kids that don't see the "errors," these are just GOOD GAMES. Kids that were raised on Playstation and Dreamcast and Xbox WILL PLAY 2600 GAMES because THEY ARE GOOD GAMES.

 

If games are bad, they're bad. Games that are good, are good. The age of the game has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Just like the previous examples of music and movies, a great movie in 1950 is a great movie in 2050. A great game in 1985 is a great game in 2005.

 

Did many games in the 'classic era' get overinflated scores? Hell yeah. If gaming mags consistently trash games, they don't get evaluation copies to review any more. You simply cannot tell it like it is in print media and expect to stay ahead of the curve. Does. Not. Happen. It's not QUITE that simple, I know, but that's the basic notion.

 

It's a fair criticisim to say a game like, say, Street Fighter Alpha for PSX has too much load time now. It was a valid criticism in 1995 too. You say Kaboom is too simplistic? Fine, I'll buy that opinion, but it was simplistic in 1982 as well. Simplistic does not equal bad or unappealing.

 

What HAS changed is EXPECTATIONS. You pay $50 for a game now, and you better get more than three buckets catching bombs. But if that game is included in a compilation with 40 others, now you've got something. If the ONLY people buying up classic games were "from the era," then the classic gaming 'fad' would have ended years ago.

[Atarifever]

But Gears of War isn't any fun. It's 2D, like on a single flat screen, not 3D. Oh, and the "High Def." image. Right; that's high def. Everything is a blob. Are those supposed to be online options? Where the 1000 man group kill-a-ma-lectric-flag-of-death match? Tht's just lame. Yawn. This game sucks. Give me "Repellant 25". Now there's a game I can really dig my genetically altered hands into. I give Gears of War a 2.5: Slightly better than Bioshock.

 

So, I have to ask, why are you even excited about these future shitty games now? You know you'll just think they're lame and quaint in the future, so what's there to bother with?

Edited December 4, 2006 by Atarifever

[Raiu]

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

 

Perhaps ironically, the only game company to bring home a real arcade port of Donkey Kong (albeit with the Japanese board order) was Rare, as part of Donkey Kong 64. I say "ironically" because Rare is now owned by one of Nintendo's biggest competitors, Microsoft.

 

-DS-

[NE146]

Perhaps ironically, the only game company to bring home a real arcade port of Donkey Kong (albeit with the Japanese board order) was Rare, as part of Donkey Kong 64. I say "ironically" because Rare is now owned by one of Nintendo's biggest competitors, Microsoft.

 

It was probably the best.. but it had some timing issues that made me debate whether it was purely emulated. Something I still wonder about. Still though, you're right in that was probably the closest I had seen the arcade on a home console

[Room 34]

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

 

Perhaps ironically, the only game company to bring home a real arcade port of Donkey Kong (albeit with the Japanese board order) was Rare, as part of Donkey Kong 64. I say "ironically" because Rare is now owned by one of Nintendo's biggest competitors, Microsoft.

 

-DS-

I think perhaps it's laziness and/or unwillingness to work with emulation of the original arcade hardware. I know MAME (at least the more recent versions that are trying to be more "pure" emulation) can't handle most of Donkey Kong's sound effects.

 

So, they probably think, why bother with emulation of the original arcade hardware, when they already have a reliable NES emulator to work with. They maybe also (incorrectly, I think) believe that most users remember the NES version better than the arcade version. Or, of course, there's always the possibility that they're being revisionist and pretending nothing pre-NES existed.

[BydoEmpire]

I actually like the NES Donkey Kong - it's one of the better ports out there. Sure, I'd rather have the real arcade game, but Nintendo never, ever suggested, hinted at, or mentioned ANYTHING for the VC other than console games. So I can't say I'm shocked the NES version is there. In fact, I'd be shocked (pleasantly) if it wasn't. But the NES DK is still pretty solid.

 

They're doing this because they've already had NES/SNES/N64 emulators ready to go for years, so it was almost no work or cost (other than setting up the Wii Shop and interface, obviously).

[figgler]

Or, of course, there's always the possibility that they're being revisionist and pretending nothing pre-NES existed.

 

Except for Game and Watches, you're pretty close to right I think. Nintendo never has acknowledged its old arcade games. Punch-Out, Mario Bros, Wild Gunman and the list goes on and on all started in arcades. I beleive in the theory that few people remember them anyway and that "real" Nintendo started with the NES. In fact, I saw an interview on Electric Playground (fucking Tommy Tallarico MUST die) where Lucas (or whatever) was talking with a developer about some Fight Night game that had a first person mode. Lucas, mentioned that was a lot like Punch Out, right? But the EA developer guy didn't get it at all and it was pretty clear he was thinking of the Little Mac NES Punch Out, not the green wire frame arcade game Lucas was referencing

[Atarifever]

I saw an interview on Electric Playground (fucking Tommy Tallarico MUST die)

You left out "painfully". Seriously. Biggest. Tool. Ever. How can people even watch that shit?

Edited December 13, 2006 by Atarifever

[ninjarabbit]

Judging older games by today's standards is poor reviewing. The fair way to judge a game from the past is to judge it by the standards and technology of the day since the developers back then obviously had no idea what today's standards and technology would be. Besides judging an old game by today's standards would be like judging a GBA game by X Box 360 standards.

[King_Salamon]

I actually like the NES Donkey Kong - it's one of the better ports out there. Sure, I'd rather have the real arcade game, but Nintendo never, ever suggested, hinted at, or mentioned ANYTHING for the VC other than console games. So I can't say I'm shocked the NES version is there. In fact, I'd be shocked (pleasantly) if it wasn't. But the NES DK is still pretty solid.

 

 

Not entirely true... I was reading through a Nintendo Power magazine and was reading up on some of the features of the Virtual Console a few issues back and the lone screen shot for the Virtual Console was of Donkey Kong. It was the ARCADE VERSION! At the time I thought there was a chance that we would get the Arcade Version (perhaps in the future we will) on the VC. You would think that if they were to use a screen shot in Nintendo Power, they would use the correct one.

 

This is likely an error on Nintendo Power's part but perhaps it could be a hint at what's to come in the future?!

[figgler]

You left out "painfully". Seriously. Biggest. Tool. Ever. How can people even watch that shit?

 

I know. I would seriously spit on his shoe if I ever saw him. You know he was in some way responsible for the music in Pac World Rally? Yeah. Weird thing is that EP reviewed it and Tommy actually put down the soundtrack, calling it nostalgically good and not annoying, but not great, or something along those lines. Just brilliant right?

Still, the chick is hot and even though they suck MS's dick and pan Nintendo, I've accepted that they are tools and watch sometimes as is about games after all.

Besides, I know you still watch Video and Arcade Top Ten

Edited December 15, 2006 by figgler

[Atarifever]

Still, the chick is hot

 

If I recall, she is also clueless about videogames and always sounds like she's trying real hard to pretend she doesn't think it's completely lame. Given that I personally know girls who are hot AND actually like games, I'm pretty sure hiring an attractive gamer girl wouldn't have been difficult for them to do, given that they had a much larger pool to draw from. It's like hiring "WWE Divas" who can't wrestle or act, but are hot. If hot is what you want fine, but there's a lot of women who are hot and talanted, and if I had to choose to listen to either hot or talanted, I wouldn't choose hot. I mean, I'm not actually getting anything from the fact that they're hot, but I can at least get some information from someone who isn't an idiot.

 

Besides, I know you still watch Video and Arcade Top Ten

Not anymore; I don't have cable.